Logic is a methodology for reasoning. Why would a methodology have “physical evidence?”
Where is your physical proof that methodogies don’t require physical proof?
my proof is in the Oxford dictionary under the definition of “methodology”
Dictionary is not physical proof. Stop having faith in your Dictionary, your holy book. Books are not proof. Spiderman was in a book also, duh. Show me physical proof your invisible fairy tale exists.
the dictionary defines methodology, and the definition is something that’s subjectively conceptual – e.g. non-physical.
That’s how words work. They are subjective constructs with meanings and those meanings are detailed in dictionaries.
You should have learned this stuff in 3rd grade. Did you pass 3rd grade?
It’s a weak cope. You just are explaining how logic is an invisible, imaginary social fairy tale, the social connnstronctz, no physical.proof, with extra steps. Extra irrelevant steps. I already summarized your view in OP. Subjective claims are arbitrary and unsubstantiated, and cannot rationally be used to arbitrate claims, since they refer to internal states that cannot be validated. Logic is NOT subjective, mathematics is not subjective. 2+2=4 is an objective fact, not subjective. Your so commited to your retarded worldview that abstractions and concepts, even if objective, you have to push it to relative social conventions. 
Clearly you never passed 1st grade math, or did your teacher just let you think 2+2=5 ???
Clearly you never passed 1st grade math, or did your teacher just let you think 2+2=5 ???
Celá debata | RSS tejto debaty