I’m trying to understand the nuance of two expressions in context.
Here is the passage:
It is a myth that all ideas are equally valid, even those with little or no objective proof. The existence of science is the commitment to objective truth. After all, science is true: fire is hot, the wheel is efficient, birds and planes can fly, we've landed on a comet and traveled to the Moon, antibiotics treat illness, and immunizations keep us from getting sick. These accomplishments are made possible by objective truths. A plausible theory can, and often does, push science forward. However, an intuition ______. Without testing and evidence, it should not be accepted. Clinging to an intuition without proof can mislead scientific progress.
Which of the following sounds more natural and fits the emphasis on testing and evidence?
A) must be followed by scrutiny into its concrete execution
B) never fails to be accompanied by the verification of its integrity
I’m especially unsure about how natural “scrutiny into its concrete execution” sounds in this context.
Thanks in advance!