Yes I appreciate your point.There is a temptation to expect logic to work,as it were in a vacuum.You need some premises to derive conclusions using logic.
It reminds me of Relativity which needs two FORs to apply **and where the origin of radiation may be inconsequential ( in measuring its speed for example).
Logical reasoning ,on the other hand is relentlessly attached to its original premise even though we have the illusion that it exists in its own right.
I am just making an analogy -not drawing any consequences.
Your point has undercut one of the bases of my question and I would need to clarify what premise I had in mind.
Interesting that Einstein claimed not to rely on the MM result (very interesting really)
** perhaps a mischarecterization but it is just an analogy.Relativity requires to know one's relationship with what is being observed,I would say.