Not everything needs to be scientific. Even a lot of mathematics is figured out first using intuition. The proof may come much much later.
Some people do have intuition that is superior to other people. They can see patterns and connections in things and intuit the correct answer, or predict the right path. Much like Steve Jobs. It's an artistic, intuitive way of looking at things rather than a purely scientific way. Sometimes it doesn't work; sometimes it does.
Fair point. Indeed, not everything needs to be scientific. Though for empirical claims that science is capable of addressing (as opposed to, e.g., what is morally right), claims that are based on sound scientific reasoning are more worthy of attention than claims that lack such a basis. I consider Princeton's claim to be one which fits this criterion: It is empirical, and it concerns a topic which is amenable to scientific inquiry. Therefore I find it appropriate to critique the claim in scientific terms.
Some people do have intuition that is superior to other people. They can see patterns and connections in things and intuit the correct answer, or predict the right path. Much like Steve Jobs. It's an artistic, intuitive way of looking at things rather than a purely scientific way. Sometimes it doesn't work; sometimes it does.