Right. There's certainly nothing wrong with deductive reasoning, and there can't even be inductive science without deductive reasoning. But any deduction involves two things: valid premises and a presumption that you can tell right from wrong somehow. Not onlyTzortzis premises are BS, but relying on human intuitions to understand the ontological nature of something transcendent... it's ridiculous.
Fixed a small error: "there can't be inductive science withOUT deductive reasoning."
This is way deeper than the Tzortzis debate. We certainly cannot rely on our intuitions, but we ar bounded to our nature. As far as we can tell, we are animals molded by an evolutionary process that happened entirely in a tiny part of the history of a single planet. Both our intuition and our intellect should be limited by this.
When people search for transcendence inside of their own minds they are making a very presumptuous claim. They are claiming that their own self contains something that transcendent. It is funny to call such a thing transcendent though.
Science, on the other hand, is our means of transcendence. It makes our understanding surpass our most naive instincts and allow us to expand our knowledge to the edge of our capabilities. This is as far as transcendence can go.
I completely agree that science is our best shot for reaching beyond the limitations of our brains. Absolutely. By I'll contend we have another tool of 'transcendence', so to speak. Because our conscience is just a small fraction of our minds, it might be argued that there is a transcendence to be found within: beyond conscient thought and languages, we could tap into dormant feelings and faculties. It could be achievable with arts, meditation, drugs... Science can reach outside of us onto the cosmos. This other thing could reach within us into our minds. As for reaching anything outside everything... well, that's just a foolish concept.