(October 6, 2013 at 1:19 am)Rational AKD Wrote: I commend you for thinking outside the box, but there's an important detail you're missing. you don't need all your reasoning skills to discern some truth. so it is possible for us to know necessary truths in order to survive without having completely accurate reasoning skills.
Read it again. I never said you needed *all* your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth - but you do need *some* of your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth and you do need those to be accurate - otherwise, your survival will be compromised. Thus, given reasonable confidence in those *some* reasoning skills, you can use them to evaluate the rest which may or may not be compromised. However, if *all* your reasoning skills are compromised, then your survival is in jeopardy - which, according to you, is contrary to naturalistic premises.
(October 6, 2013 at 1:19 am)Rational AKD Wrote: also, you still have to show why it is in fact necessary to know *some* truths. I can understand if you're saying we have to observe what resembles truth, but that can mean most if not all observations are exaggerated to give us paranoia to better react. and our reasoning skills could be attuned to make us rationalize this paranoia as actual truth so we trust our senses.
You don't observe "something resembling truth" - you observe reality. That's tautologically true. A compromised reasoning skill set would build an inaccurate model of that reality and the more inaccurate it is, the lesser the survivability. Paranoia does not improve your chances of survival - just ask the guy who thought that food was a predator.
