system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Something that has been bothering me recently: Why is reason better than the alternative? I can't prove it is without stumbling into a bootstrapping problem

I like to think of myself as a person that bases his decisions on reason. That is, gathering and weighing evidence in a logical way to reach conclusions. Being this way inclined I've always divided up beliefs into those which are reasonable and those which are not. Believing in evolution is reasonable, believing in creationism isn't. Being religious is unreasonable, believing in scientifically proven facts is. There is "right" and there is "wrong". I've put a lot of pressure on others to prove to me why their beliefs are correct but I've never put the same pressure on  the foundation of every belief I have

I'm starting to ask myself why Reason is correct and an alternative is wrong? The best argument I can come up with is that thinking about problems using reason produces useful results. These results add to the evidence that reason is correct. The problem is the whole notion of a wealth of evidence leading to proof, or at least support, is derived from reason itself. When I reach this point in thinking about reason I find myself trapped in a bootstrap problem. I can't justify reason without using reason. In effect, I'm just as bad as a committed Christian saying they believe in god because it says he exists in the bible.

I'm sure I can;t be the first person to get trapped in this train of thought, my question is therefore: Are all belief systems equally as valid from a philosophical point of view, or is there a concrete argument as to why reason is superior?
gpt
This is a basic paradox concerning the justification of logic and there's lots written on it.

Roughly, you cannot argue that arguments are invalid, without using an argument to do so, which would be invalid if the argument was right.

And inversely,

You cannot prove, without using an argument, that argumentation is valid.
So it seems to run into a circle.

To avoid this problem this structure of justification problem, you end up appealing to three possible solutions.

1: That fundamentally, everything comes down to a brute fact. This can come in different flavors, for example, if you believe that the base axiom is ultimately self-evidential or not. (Can turn into 3 sometimes)

2: That there is always a further reason, and never shall you reach an ultimate, final one.

3: Circularism/Coherentism: That there are a finite amount of reasons, and that they eventually repeat or come together in such a way to justify one another.


This is also the basic structure of knowledge, perhaps because of the 'ancestral' aspect of justification.

Most philosophers tend to be foundationalists, but not all. See Klein for an infinitist defense.

Your question is a bit confused, however. Reason in philosophy, is taken to mean, thinking in terms of arguments. Arguments are merely a instantiation of concepts/words onto formal logic arguments, with P's and Qs.

Your question boiled down is asking, why is logical thinking better than non-logical thinking?

Well, you have to know what logic is to answer that. And logic is merely the science of necessary truths; in that regard, it's similar to math but doesn't deal with numbers.

Why do we trust math over non-math?  Because it's reliable and practical. (This is a psychological point, not philosophical)

You mention reason as if it is a belief system to compare to other belief systems. The only system of belief that reason is, is logic. Therefore, when you compare it to non-reasonable belief-systems, you're comparing it to non-logical ones. That is, one's in which it has been determined that the conclusions do not actually follow from the premises.