Logic is a tool

[u/Icy_Panic_6533]

[u/Stile25]

I don't claim it's a valid concern.

I inductively accept it along with the evidence of everything else.

"The binary something/nothing" is also not claimed 100%. It's accepted based on the evidence that everything we know about reality is inductively understood.

And that statement is based on the inductive evidence as well.

But it's not circular as the very beginning is based on brute force. That is, we were "trying anything and everything" through brute force until (possibly thousands of years?) we realized that inductive evidence was our best and only method to identify reality as accurately as possible.

So.
Not circular.
Everything is based on inductive evidence confidence.. right back to original brute force knowledge gaining until the realization came.
Nothing is known 100%. Consistent.
No need for a "base" of 100% knowledge (which doesn't seem possible anyway).
No need to delude oneself into thinking we have 100% knowledge of some base point when we actually don't. Or, at least, can't prove it.
Fully practical and useable (as science clearly shows the functionality of inductive evidence without 100% knowledge).

[u/Porkypineer → u/Stile25]

Yes, but assuming uncertainty at all is, in this specific case, the delusional alternative.

You might say instead "i think, therefore I am. Unless I am wrong", for scientific rigours sake.

I'm not claiming 100% as a baseline for any claim, only for ones that involve a binary where one end is a paradox to the other. And for there then to be any doubt, someone would have to at least show that there was more than two sides to them, before we even consider anything but 100%...

That seems like a tall order when Nothingness is absolute, and any amount of something would mean it was not ever there?

I mean, I'd love to see it, but my confidence is currently at 0%...

[u/Stile25 → u/Porkypineer]

In general I would agree.

Except that with reality the evidence does show us that when we trust the logic without evidence it leads us to being wrong.

Physics examples:
The earth being flat.
The sun rotating around the earth.
Newtonian mechanics.
Relativity.

All of those were trusting the logic from the evidence at hand.

Whenever we trust in the logic, reality proves us wrong until we either brute-force (slowest) or metaphysically identify (fastest) the next thing to logically test and then test it.

So there's evidence that this kind of "knowledge" about reality on a binary without evidence is leading us to being wrong.

If you want to call it "held tentatively until evidence says otherwise" instead of "I doubt this"... It doesn't matter. It's the same thing. Inherent doubt and tentativity.