Regarding Scientific “logic”
While this is tangential to the topic.
The differences between Talmidical Logic and Scientific Logic is one of the reasons I do not take “scientific theories” to seriously.
The method of scientific analysis basically requires one to already be partial to a particular solution when examining evidence.
Being partial to a particular result usually colors those results as well causes a great deal of evidence to be excluded since what is being searched for is not the solution to the original question, rather its whether or not the solution is correct.
In practice a great deal of medical mistakes are actually caused by this method of thinking i.e a wrong diagnosis is given and then not realized.
In Talmudical logic there are two things 1) one is required to maintain impartiality 2) if one would have a kushya in the beginning of learning a sugya and them immediately propose a hypothesis he would be “laughed at”. 3) “loose ends are only unable to “shlug up” a teretz if the overwhelming majority of a topic prove the validity of the teretz in a direct way, not just “work well” with it.
Again a perfect example is evolution.
A great deal of the “evidence” to evolution would be “inadmissible” in a Talmudic debate.
Much of the evidence simply state’s that if this Theory is true then xyz makes sense. a Talmudist would state simply “So what?” and if Theory abc that I dream up would work it could also make sense in fact all you have to say is G-d created things to look this way and you lose all proof.
It could be, can’t it?
In a Talmudic “debate” direct proof is needed to prove things, and direct proof to the Theory of Evolution is what is lacking.