Really? Intuition is reliable? Even more than that, it's as reliable as science? Some intuitions may be reliable, just as a stopped clock, the big problem being you then need a means to tell which among the innumerable intuitions are the reliable ones. That is to say, science.
I didn't discuss intuition as a generic vague quality in my response to your question but a very specific type of abstract awareness of a mind-independent reality or an epistemological question. So therefore it's already a derailment for us to discuss 'intuition' and what 'intuition' means or doesn't mean. Rather, you should address my specific response and pinpoint errors in it.
Most scientists base their whole work on this cognitive faculty (awareness of a mind-independent reality as an obvious truth). How can such a faculty, when fully alert, then be considered less reliable than the entire domain of inquiry based on it.
Btw: we're drifting much off-topic. This exchange would be better moved to rambles I think.
You're probably right, albeit this does relate to the psychology of a skeptic as stated in the initial fallacy.
The burden to prove that there are no other reliable means to acquire knowledge besides science is on the claimant/upholder of this philosophical belief (i.e. scientism) which assumes without evidence the relative unreliability of all other means of inquiry. There's basis to say some other means of inquiry -- such as fuzzy logic, blind belief or intuition when intuition is defined as a cursory first impression on things -- are generally less reliable. But not the specific type of abstract awareness of reality or 'intuition' I referred to in my response.
Unless of course you demonstrate those particular abstract experiences (of a mind-independent reality and your epistemological question) aren't reliable.