Funny, I thought the same thing of you. You're still going to have to show that logic isn't important in refuting any given theory. But wait, you've already admitted that it is, then why do you say that you've shredded my arguments? You continually admit that I'm right.
There's an observable cycle here. I made the OP, you made a claim. I as well as Hilbert showed you that your claim is unreasonable. You argue. I show that your point is irrelevant to the claim you made. You try to dismiss this with various terms and such. I show that the points are irrelevent, and occasionally wrong. You repeat. I repeat, and so on.
You don't have a point to your argument, you admit to this, and then you continue to argue. Why?
Furthermore you resort to ad hominem when you realize that none of your objections are valid, and that you occasionally object to what I'm saying with the very point that you were objecting (in effect).
Also, my speech isn't egocentric, I'm simply getting tired of continually fleshing out the same details.
Simply put, logic underlies all of science. Observation is important, sure, but I didn't say that it wasn't. What could you do with an observation if you couldn't think logically? Logic underlies both epistemology and testability, and it can be used to object to the merit of a theory, since a logically derived falsehood is grounds for further study and in all cases the kink is eventually ironed out. I don't have to type all of this explicitly for it to be true, and it stands that your claim that observation is waaay more important than logic is false. They are equal in the sense that there would be no science without either one, and I think that you know this, so I'm still not quite sure what you're arguing about. You've trashed no argument. Everything that I've said here is consistent.