asaris

I assume you are speaking of this statement:
Whoever wrote this wasn't very clear on what he meant. There seem to be several statements within this paragraph.

1. Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe.
This is vague, and I assume fleshed out by what follows.
2. If x is logically impossible, it must be impossible.
This is true. See what I wrote above, regarding the definition of 'logically impossible'.
3. X can be shown to be logically impossible, based on the science of the day.
This is false; this seems also to be the source of your confusion. There are, perhaps, some things which science does show to be logically impossible. One common example of this, used quite often inversely as an example of necessary truth, is "This is water and is not H2O". Philosophers don't really agree about whether or not these statements are logically impossible; it depends alot on what you think about the role of natural science and what it tells us. If you think 'water' means 'H2O', you'll accept the above statement as necessarily false. But if you think 'water' means 'clear, more or less tasteless liquid that, when clean, is good to drink', you won't. But:

1. It is dubious whether or not the 'laws of science' are necessary truths.
There is some disagreement about this, though, from what I've seen, the
position that the 'laws of science' are necessary truths is a minority opinion.
2. Even if the laws of science are necessary truths, empirical
observations made by science almost certainly are not. The fact that
our solar system has nine planets is not a necessary truth.

4. The paragraph goes on to say that people believed the following claim:
"Euclidean geometry is consistent -> Euclidean geometry is true" First of all, if this is meant as a justification for the rejection of the claim "p is naturally impossible -> p is logically impossible", it fails. "~(p -> q)" does not entail "~(~p -> ~q)"[1]. Moreover, no one ever claimed that Euclidean geometry is true because it is consistent. They claimed it was true because most of its premises (four if I remember the number correctly) had been proven, and the fifth seemed reasonable to believe (which is why we still teach Euclidean geometry in high school, and save Riemannian geometry for more advanced courses.)

I'm not really arguing philosophy here. I'm telling you what a word means. "Logically impossible" just means that a contradiction can be derived from it. It's not a philosophically controversial definition.

[1]Since ~(p->q) entails p&~q, and ~(~p->~q) entails p&q. In order to translate the argument, parse p as 'p is naturally impossible', q as 'p is logically impossible', and ~p is the same as 'p is naturally possible'. I take the statement about Euclidean geometry to be meant as a counterexample to the general principle at issue.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche