Do you really have nothing to offer about how intuition is useful or legitimate as a "way of knowing"? You want to just say the word "intuition" and have us respond, "huh, interesting"? Talk about intellectually engaging.
I didn't get that from his response at all. He's asking what the "other ways of knowing" have done for us. Science has been demonstrably useful -- Coyne is asking why the criticisms of Scientism aren't followed by examples of the questions answered by "other ways of knowing". I wonder the same thing myself.
That science can't yet know you're experiencing love at this moment (if indeed that's the case) isn't a reason to think it never will be able to. I know it's common to think of our internal thoughts and experiences as metaphysical things, but I know of no evidence that they're anything but chemical and physical processes. You know, science.