The constituents that made our body is not the exceptions to the nature. Our body is roughly made of, in the same proportion what is available in the universe. For example, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon these are all commonly found elements in the earth, stars and the universe in general. Thus the compounds that made our body is not the exception to this universe, rather than the usual and expected one. Just like our body came out of the matter in the cosmos, our mind evolved from the physical interactions of those particles and masses. Just like the irregularities of some mass does not mean that we cannot examine the original general properties of the mass and that general properties are not valid. Similarly, just because our thinking can be apparently erroneous sometimes, does not mean that rational, pure, educated, dispassionate thinking process and highly sophisticated intuition is not as valid as science. The only Achilles heel here is to find a valid starting point for the thinking and asking the right questions from that ground (see "reason and intuition" essay). Off course, meanwhile, in order to check how good is your thinking and how well aligned is your thought with the world, you can formulate some hypothesis about some issues for practice without prior knowledge about the outcome and find the data or check the results afterwards to see how well was your thought in recognizing the truth without prior empirical evidence. If you can formulate hypothesis in many different situations based on literature reviews and information available, and find that you accurately predicted the results which you find later to be true then its a good news and your thought is getting trained in right direction. Let's analyze the situation. I am just mentioning the major contributors [ignoring infinity many others for the sake of simplicity]. For example, what is the probability of your existence by random chance in the whole universe? What is the probability of your thinking the way you are doing? What is the probability that some other person with whom you are not connected in thought or time or culture in any conceivable way is also thinking exactly the same conclusion (remember the phrase "wise men think alike"?) and in retrospect you both found out that whatever you guys thought is actually the case confirmed later by empirical data. Now calculate the joint probability of those unimaginably tiny events together. I can use some variables, coefficients and fancy looking equations to look impressive but I will not, because that's not the the point. Even just conceptionally, you can see that you can be as certain as the size universe, if not more. Theoretically, it's bigger than Graham's number when you take all variables in consideration. When you can come to this level repeatedly, then you can put more weight on your own thoughts. Otherwise keep working on your thought training. If you miss, then you have to carefully dissect the whole scenario. You have to find the reason of your wrong conclusion. Is it faulty reasoning or false appreciation of the background information or literature? In what step you missed it? Was it preventable? In what ways? By more meticulous thinking or more data collection or background reading? Was there any problem in the reference material? Was it incomplete? How and where can you have more reliable information? Can you ever get a completely reliable information or literature? You can not typically find these answer from a single source. You have to read extensively from multiple primary documents. Additionally, you have to read the background of the paper like the biography of the author, philosophy of that author, geopolitical and social melieu of that time etc. Not the least, you have to also read between lines. Yes, thought training is that hard and believe me, it still worth it because the reward is bigger than you ever imagined. We are designed to think, remember?

In order to understand hydrogen or heat you don't have to go to and experiment with sun. You can still examine hydrogen and heat found here on earth, even in our body. They are perfectly aligned under the same physical laws. Similarly, we don't have to find an ultra intelligent beings or authorities out there to validate our intuition and thinking process. Its already aligned with the underlying Cosmos's principle if done properly because our true self represents this Cosmos. In fact, our unconscious part has the latent memories of cosmos. I am aware of the fact that our thinking or intuition can lead to awry but like anomalies or irregularities in physical worlds, they are not the most common variety. Even in presence of anomaly and using intuition as the ground for science, science typically is unwilling to accept anything mere intuitive, no matter how genuine they are, unless 'falsified by empirical paradigm". Rather they reject those ideas as a walking dead philosopher's babel and figments of imagination.We should not be dissuaded by these unfortunate scientific dogmas and the anomalies. Sometimes anomalies are the first pointer of some underlying profound laws. Just like anomalies in material or physical world are the exceptions, so does fallacy of thinking. In the same line of reasoning, cognitive biases are the exceptions and luckily can be recognized and eliminated by proper thought trainings. Most of the cognitive fallacy comes from your emotional or personal pre-preference, your past experience or biases. Alternatively, it can be due to incorrect starting assumptions. Most of the time, especially when done carefully, sincerely, honestly, with a completely detached meditation, our thinking is perfectly aligned to principle of cosmos. So don't be shy in using your intuition and thought. Don't listen to those scientist who will reject any idea born in your rational mind as figment of imagination unless "falsifiable by empirical evidence". You can rely on you, your thought and enjoy the journey.