I didn't think it was vague and I've even outright stated it a couple of times. I'm asking for 1. epistemic grounding and 2. an explanation for why a bundle of assumptions is more coherent than a single foundational assumption.
1. The epistemic grounding for the existence of reason is that I directly experience it as a reasoning mind. Also, it is absolutely necessary for pretty much any worldview anywhere to function at all. So I'm pretty confident that reason is a thing. I'd be super surprised if reason turned out not to be a thing, except that the very concepts of "I," "being"," and "surprised" all pretty much depend on it being a thing.
2. I never asserted that a bundle of assumptions is more coherent than a single foundational assumption.
You're still engaging in circularity and I'm still missing the epistemic 'why'.
Where is the circularity? Show your work.
OK, but you’re still trusting that ‘if’ holds every time you reply, not just hypothesizing.
How do you figure?
Fundamentally no matter how you dress it up as a conditional, no matter how convoluted and fancily framed the argument, you're stuck at concluding 'it works' and refusing to articulate a coherent epistemology.
I'm not concluding that it works. I have directly observed that it works as a reasoning agent myself. But just to be thorough with exception handling, in the event that I am wrong about reason working and reason turns out not to work at all, then that's alright too. Not much I can do about that but cry Yopperdizzle! and call it a day. I don't see much else that needs to be done with the false branch of reason working, so I'll dedicate the remaining logic to the true branch in the event that reason works just swell.
I'd also be happy to just assume that reason works as my one foundational assumption.
Your every reply assumes logic (A=A),
Logic can be deduced from reason. That isn't an assumption, it is a reasoned conclusion.
Reason is something I directly experience as a reasoning agent, so I wouldn't really call it an assumption. But sure, let's say for the sake of argument that I assume reason.
existence (something real),
Existence can be deduced from reason. That isn't an assumption, it is a reasoned conclusion.
and uniformity (consistency)
Uniformity can also be deduced from reason. That isn't an assumption, it is a reasoned conclusion.
The only thing remotely resembling an assumption here is that reason works. It is directly experienced, and epistemically confirmed by necessity within a model with demonstrable utility, so I wouldn't even properly call reason an assumption either.
All the others can be deduced from reason using the process of reasoning.
Reasoning requires A=A to work and you’re assuming logic to deduce it, circular again.
I'm not assuming logic. I am assuming reason.
The fact that reasoning requires A=A to work means the fact that A=A works can be deduced from reason.
1. If reasoning works, logic must work as well.
2. Reasoning works.
∴ Logic must work as well.
That is a valid syllogism in the form of modus ponens. It is not circular. It is sound reasoning.
Logic’s your ‘god’ because you trust it as a brute necessity without caring to provide epistemic justification.
I trust in reason, having a good deal of direct experience as a reasoning agent, and with an abundance of empirical evidence to confirm it's utility.
But even if I were to trust in reason without justification, that wouldn't make it a god. Gods have the anthropomorphized trait of intelligence at the very least. Non-thinking abstractions like logic, math, beauty, etc. are not gods.
www.physicsforums.com
www.fabriziomusacchio.com
...wow Cartoon man dies, and still doesn't get it. but neither do the Fake Atheists get it, so don't be tooo hard on this d... cluck in the Cartoon...
