I’m struggling with a skeptical problem about reason itself.
All my beliefs seem to depend on the assumption that my rational faculties are at least somewhat truth-tracking. But I can’t see how to justify that without circularity:
If I use logic, coherence, simplicity/Occam’s Razor, explanatory power, probability, etc., I’m using reason to justify reason. If I use experience, I still need reason to interpret experience. If I use intuition or revelation, same issue.
So it seems every belief rests on: “my reason is generally reliable.”
But how can that belief be justified non-circularly?
And this is where I get stuck: it feels like a 50/50 gamble — either my reason tracks truth or it doesn’t — because I can’t even use things like probability, Occam’s Razor, or explanatory virtues to say one option is more likely without already presupposing reason.
That makes all of my beliefs feel fragile, since they seem to rest on something that us 50/50.
Does this lead to radical skepticism (brain in a vat, evil demon, simulation), or do philosophers think some circularity/basic assumptions are unavoidable?