If you examine General Theory of Relativity (GTR), it operates under the premise of a constant speed of light. Similarly, Quantum Mechanics (QM) is built upon the notion of particles existing in multiple states simultaneously. Following the logical pathways from these premises often leads to logically valid conclusions, but the soundness of these conclusions depends on the accuracy of the initial assumptions.
Now, if one were to construct a theory solely on the assumption that classical logic remains consistent, would it necessarily align with all empirical observations? In other words, does soundness imply empirical?
The history of science is full models floating around which were perfectly logical and self-consistent, but simply didn't uphold under empirical control. Examples would be the Phlogiston explanation of flames, the Lamarck model in contrast to evolution, the geocentric world view or Einstein's favorite adversary: the light ether theory. In the early stages of genetics, particularly the first half of the 20th century, there were quite a number of logical, yet terribly racist "theories" [disclaimer: no, "Mein Kampf" does not count as logical] in serious discussion which to our current-day relief did not stand the test of time, but with the knowledge of those days might quite well have been true.
- Badges
- Science topic