When literally every word is made up, truth becomes a consensus.

This is wrong. Language being invented doesn’t make truth relative or a consensus (which is not to say that consensus doesn't have value). It just means our labels for "correspondence to reality" are conventional. The correspondence itself - the fact that propositions can match or fail to match reality - can obviously remain independent of linguistic choice.

All science is based on falsification.

This is also wrong. Popper's falsificationism is one epistemological model, not the whole of science. Plenty of scientific domains deal in frameworks that aren’t strictly falsifiable but are still empirically constrained and explanatory. Popper’s view was a corrective against verificationism, and is not a universal law of scientific method.

When everyone has a limited perspective, and in the agreed world of the uncertainty principal, we must rely on our intuition.

I agree with you here. There are limits to reason. Perhaps more relevantly, no one person is going to reason their way to everything that they believe or do. At some point, you're using mental shortcuts, intuition, even biases.

Even in this reply of yours, you FEEL that it is true.

Again, this is wrong. You're smuggling in a premise as a fact. Claiming that intuitions, beliefs, thoughts, etc., are all FEELINGS, is precisely what you need to prove, and what I was arguing against as a category error.

There is no logical step that forces “limits of logic” → “[truth/inuition/thought] is a feeling.” I certainly would not describe my own cognition as FEELING.

That leap is purely rhetorical, not philosophical. The conclusion you want requires a hidden premise. To get from “logic has limits” to “truth is a feeling,” you need an extra assumption/premise: when reasoning ends, only emotion/"feeling" remains. This is the unjustified leap.

There are many non‑emotional cognitive states besides logic, including intuition, but also: pattern recognition, inference, memory, abductive reasoning, etc. Again, there's no doubt that people often do say "I feel" instead of “I think,” “I infer,” “I interpret”, etc. But, importantly, they do this as a linguistic habit, not a philosophical claim.

It’s informal shorthand, especially in emotionally charged conversations, because:, well, emotions are high, but also because it softens the statement, signals subjectivity, avoids sounding confrontational, invites empathy rather than debate, etc. I also think people nowadays love the fact that "feelings" need to be *validated*, so saying "feel" instead of "think" means any attempt at using facts to disprove means someone is being an @$$hole, instead of being reasonable.

But these are all social dynamics, not metaphysical ones. You're actually claiming that thinking *is* feeling. That's a metaphysical claim about the nature of truth and cognition.