Prelogical Inference and the Roots of Reason

This topic isn't going to be any easier to comprehend if wrapped in an abundance of large words, so I'll try keep it short and neat.

Consider the following argument between fictional debaters Alice, and Bob:
Bob: X is beyond reason.
Alice: Then why are you reasoning about X?
Bob: How do you even know that reason is the best system? Is the 'supremacy of reason' even a falsifiable claim?

Bob has committed a fallacy (red herring) but in this case we want to explore the proposition that 'the supremacy of reason' is an unfalsifiable claim, so we continue;

Notice that the claim is not that: 'reason is invalid' (because this would be a direct contradiction), but rather that 'the supremacy of reason requires evidence.'

Alice: if one were to conclude, by some process of reasoning, that a system other than reason held supremacy over reason, and therefore that one should adopt said superior system in place of reason, one would still be within the realm of reason. That is: one would have concluded via the use of reason that another system is 'better than reason', and would therefore remain stuck within the confines of reason. If reason tells you to do X, and X is to use another system, then you're still following the dictates of reason.

Bob: So is the supremacy of reason a falsifiable proposition?

Alice: No, it is an axiom. Whenever you use any system of rules to analyze the system itself, the only thing that you can ever conclude is that the system is valid. This is because you've already assumed the validity of the system in order to begin using it in the first place, and for this reason it is impossible to 'disprove' any system, using that same system. One must use a more fundamental system in order to make any sort of valid judgment about the soundness of that system.

Bob: then how do we know reason is the best system?

Alice: reason will tell us it's the best system, as will it tell us many other things through axiomatic premises, but it cannot be used to determine it's own validity or the validity of any hypothetical 'competing systems.'

Bob: then how do we know reason is the best system?

Bob's point remains well made. The argument has run up against the roots of reason, and must now end. At this point one is inclined to ask what actually is the system called 'reason', and what is a more fundamental system, and is there any 'most fundamental system'?

So, the first part first:
Reason is primarily three laws:
1. The law of identity, aka 'A is A,'
2. The law of non-contradiction,
3. The law of the excluded middle.

Adhering to these three laws, one can reason from correct premises to correct conclusions. But, more fundamentally, what is a 'law'?

Princeton.edu wordnetweb definition:
"law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature;"

A law is a clear, evident pattern observed in nature. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is the continued observation that a proposition can be the case (true), and it can also be not the case (false), but it can't both be the case (true) and be not the case (false) at the same time.

The law of spacial exclusion is an easier example. Two objects cannot share the same space at the same time. If something is here then something-else cannot also be here; here is full, and the something-else will have to wait its turn. And: if something is here then it cannot also be there, for it is here.

So how does one 'change the system' of rules, or even compare systems for that matter? Well, one doesn't. The natural laws are inferred from reality. If the nature of reality were to change, the laws would change with it, and everyone would simply start using those new laws.

If, suddenly, for example, things could be in two places at once, no one would even remember the time when they couldn't be; the law of spacial exclusion would be immediately abolished, without question, and all new reasoning would stem from the premise that things can be in two places at once.

So at the root of all things are the patterns of nature. Should these patterns change, all reasoning must change with them. Reason can only be invalidated by a change in nature (and in doing so change itself and become revalidated), as reasoning is simply the application of the most fundamental of the natural laws to the realm of thought and ideas.

 

Edit: I changed it. That is what I meant.

 

My intent was to explore and open up a debate on the use of logical axioms in reasoning; and the possible 'arguments' that might be made against the supremacy of reason.

When, for example, a theist tries to 'pull god out of a loophole in logic', as so often they try to do, what is actually happening is not the validation of 'god', but the invalidation of reason. They're trying to pull the one thread that binds the entire cloth together.

So I got to thinking. It's easy enough to point out that "you can't invalidate reason using reason" ... but is reason itself actually valid, and whence does it draw its validity?

And hence the set of arguments posted herein.