To apply logic, you either end up with P implies Q statements that say nothing concrete, or else you take certain hypothetical assumptions as true as an article of faith. Everybody does the latter all the time, but tend to be unaware that they are doing this. Furthermore, what hypotheses people take on faith in their daily life vary, and there is no True foundation that one can show to be the case. Even scientists must have faith that the universe behaves in a reasonable enough way that what they are doing produces sensible results (and at present it appears this way, though one cannot answer questions as to the past and future on such matters given only available evidence -- circularities abound when you try.)

As a study of the past, material science can only investigate 'what appears to have been, based on current evidence', and not 'what actually was' in the very possible case that these two notions: 'what appears to have been', and 'what was', do not converge. It is not sensible for one conducting a scientific investigation into 'what was' based on current evidence to assume otherwise, for then they have no foundations. But just because this is a necessary assumption for the investigating scientists neither makes it true, nor implies that others should take on this assumption. The alternative is that the past cannot be deduced logically from available evidence, and then one must look to other sources of inspiration. Scientists do not do this, but many religious believers do. Thus we find that the two camps may be standing on different, incompatible, foundations, both of which can make sense depending on your standpoint. Total victory on the part of the evolution brigade is as absurd as an 'it's all in Gen 1' approach, being possible only with the kind of conquest over peoples thinking and beliefs that the Christians and Muslims have tried in the past. (Guess what: other belief systems survived, and a new one is now in the ascendency, but needs to learn from past attempts at conquest of belief and realise that there are better ways forward.) On both sides, though more on the fundamentalist religious side, people need to be encouraged, gently, to open their minds to other possibilities besides the ones they take on faith. And this taking things on blind faith is, so far as I'm concerned, philosophically unavoidable. Anyone whether of a holy book or a science book, who believes otherwise is deluded.

"People don't want to use a 'social' service in which their social circle has to pay in order to interact with each other."
This happens all the time -- it's called going to the pub for a beer. Beer cost money, and people gladly pay it for the social time that comes with it, along with the taste.

It's reasonably well known that, in the case of clinical trials of psychiatric medications, that there are often positive correlations between the success of a drug in a trial and the corporation funding the trial. And the funding body in these cases has a veto on the trial. (See Moncrieff's books for more and the actual references... I've lent my copies to friends so don't have them to hand.) Most likely this goes on all the time in medical science due to the amount of money at stake. In the case of other sciences, one would expect evolutionary pressures to promote what the funding bodies want to see, regardless of explicit intent. The funding bodies' pressure to publish, and the need for academics to conform to a certain extent in order to preserve their career path is what has caused this bias to build up over the years.

Things do happen. For a reason? Reason requires linguistic expression and, on a pure combinatorical level, human language is inadequate to describe everything. Thus there will be many phenomena for which there are no rational reasons which humans will ever find. Some things happen for an understandable reason, others happen for reasons that will be forever beyond humankind, yet others will happen for reasons that theoretically don't exist. Thought experiment: Just look at the growth of possibilities as your 'universe' gets bigger and compare this with the growth of possibilities explicable within that 'universe'.

Magical Thinking is, at some point, unavoidable: the reliability of mathematics in the realm of physics is a phenomena that we trust and rely upon, but why it should be that way is not something we can deal with. It just works. Most examples of magical thinking express ideas of behaviour of reality which either contradict everyday experience or are unverifiable or unverified by science and the scientific methods available to us at the time. But to say that science can disprove magical ideas requires that we assume that scientific insights generalise well beyond the point where we've verified them experimentally, and this is, again, a kind of belief in magic. We've seen a pattern in nature and believe that pattern applies elsewhere, or someone's told us of a pattern and we believe in it. Science adds rigour but never totally gets us away from this kind of issue.

You either believe in magic and are aware of it, or else you believe in magic and are unaware of it. Either way, you believe in magic, and more than you realise.

Conclusions of a logical rational argument are only as good as the foundational assumptions on which they're based. In science and maths circles this isn't a problem, but when one gets beyond, to the rest of life, the fact that, as you dig down, you reach a point where you have to rely on bind faith matters. Also a problem with logic and reason is the unmanageable complexity of arguments that handle reality in its full glory rather than a greatly simplified model (which makes many unprovable and untestable assumptions). Logic and reason have their place, but the way the aggressive secularists and ultra-rationalists want us to believe in them is irrational and illogical: magical thinking just makes more sense when you actually get down to it and think about your thinking.

Is a loose demonstration of plausibility of the Mach. theory.

The 192 is the red-herring. 44/24 would be fine (we don't need more than 44kHz sampling once processing has been done, but having the recording mastered to a 24bit format would change the requirements for compressing the dynamic range. Also, in the case of hi-hats being tapped, they are quite quiet, and so don't use all of the 16bit dynamic range of CD. You'd be lucky to be hearing 9bits of it unless the mastering engineer has overdone the compression. The effect, then is one of bitcrushing to 8-9bits (vs 16-17bits dynamic range left in a 24bit recording) which one can learn to hear even when subtle.