Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

No wonder why I'm so mad at international crooks such as Popper, Feynman and the like who have damaged already several generations of scientists and have brought science, especially physics, not only to a standstill but into a dead-end street. The whole situation, especially in physics is utterly outrageous, ignoring OU notwithstanding. Even the most basic stuff is noting but plain, easily provable nonsense.

[WilbyInebriated]

Not true. The system of logic actually differs in these areas. What's even more shocking is that the scientific logic (hard science logic) is being violated at every step of the way even in the institutions devoted to be its greatest protectors. Science (real science, hard science, that is) is in shambles and only naive or semi-educated people such as you appear to be from this conversation, don't see it.

you are incorrect. the logic doesn't differ at all.
logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. the methods of valid inference and correct reasoning are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning... the soft sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged) and the hard sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged)... therefore the logic is the same. there is no "different" logic. if you contend it is then simply show a valid inference method that doesn't use inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning.

[Omnibus]

no didn't make that clear earlier, you used it as a red herring fallacy to divert the argument because you couldn't provide a cogent response. just like you are doing now. your opinion on the honesty or lack thereof of contemporary hard science is irrelevant! the logic under debate here is the logic used in reasoning and the same that is used to point out fallacies. that is what started it all remember? i do, it was your erroneous statement declaring what ad hominem was... 

Of course. I already pointed out the intrinsic differences let alone the travesty of science we're experiencing nowadays.

My opinion about what science is nowadays isn't something hanging in the air, but has roots. I've given you a clue where this opinion stems from.

[WilbyInebriated]

Of course. I already pointed the intrinsic differences let alone the travesty of science we're experiencing nowadays.

no you didn't point out any intrinsic differences... please define the method used that is not inductive or deductive reasoning. please give an example of a strong case and a weak case of this 'omni' method. including the various (if any) types of this 'omni' method would be helpful as well.

your opinion is irrelevant...    but yes, you have given me a clue as to where it stems from. it stems from your obvious mental deficiency and/or your lack of education.

[Omnibus]

no you didn't point out any intrinsic differences... please define the method used that is not inductive or deductive reasoning. please give an example of a strong case and a weak case of this 'omni' method. including the various (if any) types of this 'omni' method would be helpful as well.

your opinion is irrelevant...    but yes, you have given me a clue as to where it stems from. it stems from your obvious mental deficiency and/or your lack of education.

Don't project onto others what applies to you. Your education is deficient and you are the one lacking mental capacity.

As for concrete examples, I leave them to you, as a homework. There are plenty of examples in the intrinsic sense, let alone the travesty aspect. As a matter of fact, the Hamilton's equations are one such concrete example but you're not equipped to understand my argument, as was seen. So, you're the one lacking knowledge and ability to understand what I'm saying but are blaming me for your deficiencies. What a stupid situation you've put yourself in.