
Whether a scientific idea comes while one is staring out the window, or
dreaming, or having a fantasy,  or watching an apple fall (Newton), or
sitting in a bath (Archimedes) ... it is ultimately the result of a lot of
intense scientific thinking done beforehand.  Letting one's mind roam
freely and giving rein to one's intuition can be a useful way of coming
up with new ideas, but only when one has done a lot of rational analysis
of the problem first.  

Scientific intuition is not something one is born with.  It is something
that one learns.  Maybe we don't understand completely how it is learned,
but training in systematic scientific thinking is certainly one of the 
key elements in developing it.  

Informal exploration is also often an important element in finding new
scientific ideas.  One thinks, for instance, of Darwin's naturalistic
studies in the Galapagos islands, which led him to the ideas for the 
theory of evolution.  

This is why I am offended by a definition of science that emphasizes
empirical verification and does not recognize thinking and informal
exploration as important scientific work.  I agree that mere speculation
does not deserve to be called science.  I also think that mere empirical
studies not directed by good scientific thinking are at best a very
poor kind of science.  


I don't think that science should be defined in a way that some of the
activities that lead to really important science --- namely thinking and
informal exploration --- are not recognized as scientific work.  

--
In the arguments between behaviorists and cognitivists, psychology seems 
less like a science than a collection of competing religious sects.   