Reason 
Intellectual Integrity 


Reason: Genuinely and thoroughly considering any and all ideas, concepts, hypotheses and any other thoughts that are brought to the table and weighing them on the scale of knowable reality. 

It's not necessarily an absolutely objective scale upon which to weigh such things, but then again, is anything really absolutely objective? How would we know? All we can go on is that which we consider to be real and actual at this point in time. What if we even differ on that? Well, then at least we can talk in terms of whether or not it seems reasonable within one's particular chosen world view. It's more about the intent of the one doing the weighing and the process they use than about whether or not we even agree with the scale they're using to do the weighing in the first place. 

Are they actually thinking through the details or not? Are they accounting for all of the possible angles on the issue or not? Are they actually, genuinely considering the idea or concept or are they just paying it lip service and discounting it without so much as pondering it for a moment? We can't fault someone for not having as big of a database to go on as someone else when reasoning through something, but are they actually accessing their entire database in the thought process or are they withholding certain details for the sake of making it sound more palatable to their narrow understanding of the issues, and less dangerous to their world view? 

Another issue... Is it reasonable for someone to use the word "science" in the title of their organization or the movement it represents if the methods of science are not the primary mechanism by which the organization or the movement as a whole arrives at the primary concepts and ideas they offer to the public? I think not. Even if the ideas and concepts of the organization seem reasonable within the frame-work of that particular organization's world view, it is not reasonable to offer such content to the general public in the name of science when science is not how the concept came about in the first place, especially when they are telling the public that that is in fact the case. 
    Example: Creation-Science organizations


Intellectual Integrity: Are "all parts touching"? 

Do they all fit with each other? Do they all work together to form a cohesive, reasonable and understandable system of thought/s? Am I appropriately using the computing power of my brain by only giving it real data that it can actually work with or am I trying to force my mind to count something as real which it can't possibly verify? Does it matter to keep track of the difference between fantasy and reality or are we all "ok" as long as it sounds neat?

Imagination and creativity are tools that can be helpful along the way as we delve into something and try to figure out how it all works. However, if imagination and creativity replace reason and intellectual integrity in the foundational stages of developing our understanding of something, and if the conclusion falls apart with the removal of the imagined component, how can the conclusion be considered reasonable?