Is logic evidence ?

[Baruch]

Bible thumpers proof text.  Science thumpers do something similar ... ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their current hypothesis ... and sometimes ignoring what doesn't fit established theory ... this is how Chaos science was discovered in the 80s ... someone stopped looking away from contrary evidence (in regards to turbulence in its many forms).  So evidence that has been proof texted by what is chosen as data, and how data is interpreted ... necessarily will agree with hypothesis or theory.  The question is, what is data (this is a developing target) and how to interpret it (also a developing target)?  Most of the time science colors within the lines, and can get away with it.  But one can color outside the lines ... though most of the time this will lead nowhere (which seems to be the case with String Theory).  Most attempts at doing something new, fail ... but we must keep on trying.

Now regarding General Relativity vs Relativistic Quantum Field Theory ... both are very good theories for what they cover ... not mere hypothesis today, as they were 50 - 100 years ago.  But they are inconsistent with each other.  If you try to directly merge them, you get infinite answers to your questions put to it.  This is because Relativistic Quantum Field Theory is linear ... and uses very different maths from General Relativity which is also non-linear.  No one in almost 100 years has been able to get past this ... partly because Quantum Theory continued to develop ... it was a moving target for the first 50 years until 1950 ... but General Relativity is basically unchanged since 1920.  Since 1950 many attempts have been made, including String Theory, to paper over this inconsistency.  But it would appear, for most applications, this inconsistency has no practical impact ... though perhaps near the surface of a neutron star (like at the center of the Crab Nebula) the quantum aspect and the gravitational aspect are equally ferocious.

[Termin]

I think evidence is probably more important then logic. But I'm not sure how you can have illogical evidence.

I think the closest you can get to illogical evidence would be to use evidence illogically.