I recommend you watch the video.
I don't really understand your first paragraph. You don't define "seat of your pants" thinking, or your "they", or your 120 Zeros.
Your second paragraph is an assertion, so fails the test of validation. Not even sure what your argument is.
In your third paragraph, you elevate scientists beyond their station. They have no greater insights beyond the borders of knowledge than anyone else, except perhaps that they know where the borders are within their discipline. Heisenberg was no different.
Those borders change over time, of course. Newton knew more than Galileo and Galileo than Ptolemy. Things we see as laws are occasionally refined or refuted when there is new knowledge available. Even so, scientific laws at any point reflect the truth as far as it can be tested. Thus laws at a minimum approximate the truth.
By the way, I think you are misinterpreting Heisenberg. He didn't say we would find God there. He wondered if we would ever reach the place such a being inhabits. The quote ends with a question: "will we be able to get to the bottom of the glass?"
Heisenberg acknowledges the gap. All of his knowledge of science is useless to him. He is speculating about a god, in much the same way a wandering Hebrew might have done when contemplating the fire and brimstone at Sodom. We don't know what caused it, so there must be a God...
Except now we might be able to explain a fire and brimstone event of such a sort. And in a thousand years, the things that Heisenberg wondered about will probably be explicable.
Please remind me who it is that is the source of your theory. Also, what is your definition of the scientific method?
| 
