The Probability your cognitive faculties produce mostly true beliefs given Evolutionary Naturalism

[quatona]

Your Petitio Principii again.

Yeah, sure. As I said, working from axioms is inescapable - but if you can come up with a solution to that problem, I am all ears.

This is specious nitpickery. Naturalism implies this would be the only way to validate it and thus renders itself incaple of being so validated. Why on earth accept something which undercuts its only reason to be accepted as such?

...because it´s an inherent logical problem of cognition, and because I haven´t presented an alternative.

I am not, nor have I claimed to be.

So neither you nor I have a solution to this problem.

Nope. I have evidence that is sufficient to me.

If "I have evidence that is sufficient to me" is the argument that cuts it, why do you discuss that which I have told you is sufficient evidence to me?
I have my methods of distinguishing between accurate and inaccurate ideas within reality, and they work well for me.

From your perspective I am unable to prove it,

...and from your perspective I am unable to prove things within reality. The somewhat funny thing is that we probably agree on a lot of things concerning reality and probably use the same method to distinguish accurate from inaccurate claims.

As I said, my belief is very much tangential to the thread and does not alter one iota to my argument nor support another's contention in any way.

Whether you call it "faith" or "petitio prinicipii", it´s the same problem.

Tu quoque fallacy or call it Bulverism, both would apply to your thinking here.

Read up about a "tu quoque fallacy". It isn´t what you think it is.

 

[ExodusMe]

I am saying that human brains are observably unreliable at producing true beliefs on their own. The part of my brain that would be produced via evolution is notoriously bad at doing so on it's own. The unassisted man would indeed find itself with a lot of misconceptions about reality.

Thankfully this is not the state we find ourselves in, alone, lacking in knoledge or information from others and many brains in the past all working on the same problems.

We have indeed found systems that are much more reliable than the single unassisted human brain. And, we have done so by working within the world for a long time using the parts of our brains that are reliable and trying to deal with where they would be unreliable.

This is why we develop systems like logic, rationality science ect to try to deal with their weaknesses. The social aspect of brains is their strength, which is of course another thing we should expect from evolved brains.

That is the problem with the analysis. The strength of the human brain isn't epistemology. Evolution wouldn't have yielded anything other than a rudimentary epistemology. The strength of brains is observation, reaction, prediction, it's social nature and communication/language. None of these things are things that could not evolve.

Even so, and even with all that, humans are still often coming to incorrect beliefs all the time about things, so, it is at best a work in progress.

I don't rely only on my own brain to produce beliefs, but rather on systems that are designed by brains with lots of trial and error, feedback, cross checks ect.

Variant, I understand you are attempting to answer the OP, but it does not seem like your answer is clear. Try to answer this question directly

Under what circustances do you propose humans come to form beliefs based on Evolutionary Naturalism?

Would you also give a specific example as to how a person comes to form a true belief? If you are going to refer to rationality, etc... would you also show how a person would come to form the belief that something is rational to believe?

In your previous post you stated that beliefs and actions are highly correlated and then you elaborate on how humans have some reliable faculties that they use to form beliefs and this corrects the wrong faculties. This is not an objection to the OP. The OP shows that the probability you have formed true beliefs on naturalism & evolution is low or inscrutable. If you wish to answer this you need to provide a methodology where humans form beliefs under N&E that are more likely to be true than false.

To state that you have some faculties that are reliable is similar to the error @DogmaHunter is making. You are essentially saying "my cognitive faculties are reliable, because my cognitive faculties are reliable". The question is under what conditions would a human form beliefs that are more likely to be true than false under N&E?

Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post. Thanks

 

[variant]

Variant, I understand you are attempting to answer the OP, but it does not seem like your answer is clear. Try to answer this question directly

Under what circustances do you propose humans come to form beliefs based on Evolutionary Naturalism?

I am sorry for the lack of clarity, I will try to help if I can.

I think beliefs are formed through ones interactions with the world.

This process, is not particularly reliable in any given interaction, for any given person.

However, given language and social interaction, it can be refined over iterations and over time for many differn't people addressing the same problems.

So, a weak system of forming reliable beliefs is strengthened over time.

Would you also give a specific example as to how a person comes to form a true belief? If you are going to refer to rationality, etc... would you also show how a person would come to form the belief that something is rational to believe?

First I would have to give you an idea of what I meant about beliefs being "true".

Beliefs are true to the extent that they allow us to predict, anticipate, manipulate and function in the world.

We come to beliefs again, through experience.

In your previous post you stated that beliefs and actions are highly correlated and then you elaborate on how humans have some reliable faculties that they use to form beliefs and this corrects the wrong faculties. This is not an objection to the OP. The OP shows that the probability you have formed true beliefs on naturalism & evolution is low or inscrutable. If you wish to answer this you need to provide a methodology where humans form beliefs under N&E that are more likely to be true than false.

The idea that evolution can not form brains that can do everything a human can indeed do is unsupported in my opinion. Plantigna may not even be arguing that but that is the main issue to be addressed. Whether or not we are the product of evolution.

I agree with the OP (while disagreeing in that I think we are a product of evolution) in that I think that we are a product of evolution AND that any given brain is unlikely to come to mostly true beliefs just based upon it's inherent biology. I have seen some of the ideas that people come up with when left to their own devices and without the sum total of human experience in society I can imagine how bad their beliefs could be off the mark.

I disagree with the OP that this means we can not form reliable beliefs, because I think the biology can give us adequate grounding to form secondary structures like society and language that would drastically increase our reliability.

To state that you have some faculties that are reliable is similar to the error @DogmaHunter is making. You are essentially saying "my cognitive faculties are reliable, because my cognitive faculties are reliable". The question is under what conditions would a human form beliefs that are more likely to be true than false under N&E?

You can only tell if your ideas are working by working with your ideas.

So the issue is contextual. We can tell if our cognitive faculties are reliable in forming beliefs if our beliefs hold up under the various tests that reality throws at us.

If we are arguing about whether we can form reliable beliefs with respect to objective reality, then we have to talk about whether it is possible for us to be objective and how we can accomplish such a task. Which again, we have plenty of ways to reduce the subjective portions of our experience.

Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post. Thanks

Don't worry much, I am hard to offend by anyone actively exploring an issue.

 

[quatona]

The OP shows that the probability you have formed true beliefs on naturalism & evolution is low or inscrutable.

Actually, I still don´t see how the OP shows that. I see it claiming it, but neither can I find a logical deduction leading to this conclusion, nor do I even see the attempt of explaining how to calculate these probabilities.
So it would be nice if you´d - as I have asked you before - fill in the missing logical steps and outline the calculation method.
Until then, it sounds more like an argument from incredulity.

If you wish to answer this you need to provide a methodology where humans form beliefs under N&E that are more likely to be true than false.

Let´s take a simple example, because I do not really understand where your skepticism towards human epistemology kicks in.
Let´s say I am an engineer and I want to build an effects device that produces a delay. I make a plan of which - based on previous experiences and formed beliefs - I think it will get me what I want. I follow this plan, build the device, and it produces exactly the delay as I have anticipated. I tend to conclude that the ideas that I based my plan on were likely to be accurate, and that my plan was an accurate application of these ideas, too. (If the result is not the expected one, I am going to start to look for errors - either in my plan or in the underlying assumptions).
IOW, the method of validating beliefs is somewhat based on the feedback that reality supplies me with when I act upon my beliefs.
So help me understand where in this process you see the problem, i.e. how and where I should even get the idea that my faculties might be faulty, and what kind of reliability you are missing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To state that you have some faculties that are reliable is similar to the error @DogmaHunter is making. You are essentially saying "my cognitive faculties are reliable, because my cognitive faculties are reliable".

That's a complete misrepresentation of what is being said.

The fact is that the reliability of our cognitive faculties, is testable.
The reliability of them is demonstrated through their continued success in achieving results.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

By its results. By their ability to produce succesfull results.

It produces results, but to label them 'succesful' is begging the question.

One is a scientific identification of demonstrable mental health problems in reality, including treatments to counter and/or diminish them. The other is nothing like that.

Ah, but this is adding information to your original statement which merely pointed to its existence. So you agree your initial reasoning was deficient then in this instance.

Just to point out though, Medicine in general and Psychiatry are not scientific systems. Medicine often says it is an Art. They utilise EBM, evidence-based medicine, which is an empiric system based on statistical evaluation and confidence interval to determine treatments and suggest causes. This is neither repeatable nor falsifiable due to ethical constraints on running studies again with negative outcomes and to exclude bias it minimises or ignores the standard hypothesis-testing system of Scientific Method in favour of systematic review and meta-analyses. In essence, a lot of psychiatry falls outside the purview of 'Science' on account of this. Read Cochrane medical studies and you will read a lot about 'best evidence' or 'evidence class', but precious little the terms 'science' or 'scientific'.

No. Anti-psychotic medicine are pretty effective in ending psychotic episodes.
The longer someone remains psychotic, the more chance of brain damage - which, ironically, has detrimental effect on cognitive faculties.

Do you know what the term 'psychosis' means? It means a disconnection from reality. How do we determine reality though? There are personality disorders like Schizotypal where certain acts like a lucky baseball cap is thought to act in reality or narcisists that really think themselves perfect. These are in a sense mild psychoses, not disorganised but still. When a floridly psychotic individual is brought out of that state, he is termed apsychotic but this does not mean his psychotic episode has ended until thought form has been restored, until he ceases to have tangential or circumferential or referential thought - no antipsychotic will do this. They merely end his hallucination or severe disorganisation and it is then that correction can be brought about.

Anti-psychotic medicines fall in two classes. These are typicals and atypicals, which broadly act on dopamine receptors and 5HT receptors. No antipsychotic has ever been found that does not act on d2 receptors however. These receptors are related to emotion and perception and no connection to reasoning as such has been demonstrated outside of associations to depressive or manic states and even here the evidence is ambigious.
Now Ketamine acts on NMDA receptors and can elicited a state very much similar to psychosis. It creates a dissociative state that is also amenable to some antipsychotics, to a lesser or greater extent. Thought form however is unaltered. Logical relation remains intact. No connection here has however been shown to dopamine or serotonin in the same manner as in psychosis. The theory of HOW psychosis emerges is very much up in the air, from glutamate-derived pathways through genetic susceptibility though psychological triggering in susceptible patients. Such broad statements that you are making is simply poor understanding of the literature.

As to cognitive function, ever heard of neuroplasticity? The brain adapts according to what pathways are used and in what manner. Long term antipsychotics cause improvement in cognitive function, as does psychosis cause worsening, but this is through the brain strengthening or demyelinating the relevant neuronal axons. Whether the drugs cause this we simply don't know. It may be the apsychotic state that allows correction, allows neuroplastic regeneration as likely as any pharmacologic action. Similarly with psychosis, which may be the trigger but not root cause of cognitive decline. It is a bit of a catch 22.

That is just false. The cognitive therapies are done in an attempt to reverse the damaging effects of psychosis. It is also part of preventive therapy so that people suffering from schizofrenia, for example, learn to recognise the signs of entering a new psychosis - so that they can start up medication immediatly and not wait until the psychosis is full blown accute.

CBT reverses the cognitive deterioration and helps people realise when entering a new psychosis? How is this not treating the underlying illness? I don't understand your objection to what I said.
Anyway, many studies have shown that CBT is useful and advantageous in all stages of psychosis, acute or chronic. No psychiatric institution on this earth does not offer psychological treatment concommittently with medication, so to champion the one over the other here seems foolish. As stated above, thought form is not altered by medication. We cannot suddenly stop a depressive from interpreting things in the most negative light possible or a paranoid schizophrenic from associating things to his deusions by medications alone, nor can medication suddenly evaporate delusions. If this were the case, then we would inject risperdal in casualty and send people on their way, instead of having to admit them for weeks at a time for multiple therapies to take effect.

I note that you didn't comment on the Sye Ten remark. I also note that this question here falls completely in line with Sye Ten style nonsense.

I am sorry, I don't know who or what Sye Ten is. I don't understand the relevance nor could quickly find something to explain it to me when googling.

Mental health.

To mention that, seems like an admission that you agree that faulty cognitive faculties are a health problem. Which implies that cognitive faculties have physical underpinnings in the brain.

All the available evidence suggests that reasoning is what the brain does.
So that's what I'm going with.

If you wish to suggest some other mysterious thing as the underpinning of reasoning, by my guest. Don't forget the supportive evidence.

Let's turn it around maybe...
So, what, in your opinion, does the brain do - if not thinking, reasoning, etc?

I agree there are physical components. I have been at pains to constantly say not SOLELY derived from the material. The evidence for a purely neurological basis is simply lacking however. I discussed this in another thread and another poster (Chesterton I think) beautifully summed it up by the term "a Science of the gaps-issue".

I have no reason to think that "thought" is present or happening anywhere else.
And professionals don't seem to think so either. Why else would they put people under a brain scanner when they wish to find out why they excel at math, for example?

Professionals don't really know how thought forms or functions. Hence they are trying to figure it out. To pretend they already have to some extent is laughable.
As to your example, if we test the condition of a car on a roller, it hardly constitues proof of driving.

I never made any claims of general efficacy.
Someone extremely close to me suffers from chronic paranoid psychosis.
The only thing that helps in controlling those episodes (and ending accute ones) are anti-psychotics.

I am very sorry for you. There are few things more damaging then mental illness in those close to you. I have seen this first hand in my own near relations and in my professional aspect as a doctor.

I would suggest though that you should encourage CBT and not just place all hope in medications alone. A multimodal approach is always more effective in these cases. I have attached a systemic review which strongly supports its efficacy here.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for schizophrenia

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Logic is a linguistic description of the reality we find ourselves in. It is made out of more basic parts of our ability to describe things.

Logic is the systematic study of causal relation in arguments. This is by necessity done in some form of abstract system by language, but hardly makes logic a form of linguistics nor merely an observation of reality.

We don't have to have faith. You can observe whether or not your descriptions work out.

The only way this argument works is if you don't think brains can evolve that can handle this type of problem.

So, you would have to establish that evolved brains can not possibly observe the consequences of their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. It would be hard to demonstrate such a thing in my opinion.

Logic can be sound or unsound, valid or not. If a child sees their father putting money under their pillow in exchange for a tooth, it is equally logical from the child's perspective to determine their father is the tooth fairy than to determine the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
My problem is not logic, but whether it can be shown valid or not. A system can fully determine its own conclusions by its own internal rules, as an evolved brain would, but this renders it impossible to thus determine its essential validity - for we cannot determine if it is actually a true relation drawn or whether we are merely predetermined to make an incorrect one and consider it thus correct.

Rationality is established by observation of using rationality in practice.

This makes no sense. Rationality is when something is in accord with reason and thus presupposes correct causality in its underlying propositions. For it would be unreasonable to determine A thus B if A is not really a prerequisite for B. In essence, rationality only proceeds from rationality. Irrationality cannot give rise to rational decisions. Even if the end point is correct, but my reasoning to reach it cannot be shown to be rational, then it is fully irrational. If a sum is done for 7 pages with brilliant answers but an error is made on page 2, then it is fully irrational. Now if we cannot determine the original axioms or beginning of our reasoning to be rational, or claim it the irrational response of neurological action and blind iteration of molecules as naturalism does, then we cannot confirm rationality in the first instance and must declare it irrational in the second. Thus observation of result cannot determine the validity of the reasoning or the rationality thereof used to reach it.

You would have to support the idea that material can't give rise to language, observation and logic. I don't think that is supported anywhere here.

Not at all. See my explanations above.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

...because it´s an inherent logical problem of cognition, and because I haven´t presented an alternative.

So a system that disproves the validity of its own basis is acceptable to you? Okay then.

So neither you nor I have a solution to this problem.

Please elaborate, I do not understand what you mean here.

If "I have evidence that is sufficient to me" is the argument that cuts it, why do you discuss that which I have told you is sufficient evidence to me?
I have my methods of distinguishing between accurate and inaccurate ideas within reality, and they work well for me.

...and from your perspective I am unable to prove things within reality. The somewhat funny thing is that we probably agree on a lot of things concerning reality and probably use the same method to distinguish accurate from inaccurate claims.

Whether you call it "faith" or "petitio prinicipii", it´s the same problem.

If you wish to see it in this manner, that is fine by me. As I said repeatedly, we seem to largely be in accord here on the issues at hand, we merely interpret or 'solve' it in different ways.

Read up about a "tu quoque fallacy". It isn´t what you think it is.

I looked it up and it seems to accord with what I thought. You seem to think that because I used what you consider petitio principii myself that my objection to others' petitio principii is flawed.

 

[ExodusMe]

That's a complete misrepresentation of what is being said.

The fact is that the reliability of our cognitive faculties, is testable.
The reliability of them is demonstrated through their continued success in achieving results.

That isn't an answer to the OP.

You cannot provide an argument for the reliability of your cognitive faculties as you are using your cognitive faculties to provide the argument. It is self-referential and begging the question. You need to provide a method where humans would be more likely to form true beliefs than false beliefs on evolutionary naturalism.

 

[ExodusMe]

Actually, I still don´t see how the OP shows that. I see it claiming it, but neither can I find a logical deduction leading to this conclusion, nor do I even see the attempt of explaining how to calculate these probabilities.
So it would be nice if you´d - as I have asked you before - fill in the missing logical steps and outline the calculation method.
Until then, it sounds more like an argument from incredulity.

Your objection isn't clear. You are essentially saying you don't understand the argument, therefore, it is illogical. What is illogical about it?

The argument is in the OP. Here is a rehash.
P(R/N&E) is either low or inscrutable; if you accept N&E you have a defeater for the reliability of your cognitive faculties and for any belief (B) you might hold; since (B) might be N&E itself; therefore a person who accepts N&E has a defeater for N&E (a reason to doubt or be agnostic with respect to it). If he has no independent evidence, N&E is self-defeating and hence irrational.

I don't need to calculate the probability in any hard-mathematical sense. It is enough to say that the probability is low or insrutable in order to get the point across. I can assign a number - like say 25% of the time your cognitive faculties might be reliable on N&E. In any case, just pick a threshold to where we would say "human cogntive faculties are unreliable on N&E, and that number would be the probability). I think, in this case, if N&E cannot produce true beliefs at least 50% of the time they would be unreliable.

Let´s take a simple example, because I do not really understand where your skepticism towards human epistemology kicks in.

I am not skeptic. I don't believe evolutionary naturalism. I am saying a person who affirms N&E is not rational in believing N&E.

Let´s say I am an engineer and I want to build an effects device that produces a delay. I make a plan of which - based on previous experiences and formed beliefs - I think it will get me what I want. I follow this plan, build the device, and it produces exactly the delay as I have anticipated. I tend to conclude that the ideas that I based my plan on were likely to be accurate, and that my plan was an accurate application of these ideas, too. (If the result is not the expected one, I am going to start to look for errors - either in my plan or in the underlying assumptions).
IOW, the method of validating beliefs is somewhat based on the feedback that reality supplies me with when I act upon my beliefs.
So help me understand where in this process you see the problem, i.e. how and where I should even get the idea that my faculties might be faulty, and what kind of reliability you are missing.

This isn't a simple example. You haven't related this to survival & reproduction at all (the bedrock of evolutionary naturalism). All you did was form an example of cognitive faculties working in a reliable manner and asserted it as proof that your cognitive faculties are reliable (self-referential).

I will make this clear on my end. I believe my cognitive faculties are reliable. It doesn't pose a problem for me and any example showing they are reliable would be an example for why N&E is not true. I need you to show me how a human would come to form true beliefs more often than not on N&E.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So if you believe N&E together than you have a defeater for R and, therefore, have a defeater for rationally accepting N&E.

Sorry, but my sensus naturalis gives me an inherent defeater defeater, similar to William Lane Craig's defeater defeater (but unlike his so-called "sensus divinitatis" my sensus naturalis actually exists, of course) so your argument doesn't apply and any beliefs I hold about naturalism or evolution are therefore rational. And what's more, I deem any belief you have about a god as irrational.

Ain't Philosophy fun?

 

[ExodusMe]

Nice try hot toddy, but the sensus divinitatis only supports the proper basicality of belief in God. The internal instigation of the Holy Spirit gives me a defeater-defeater. Naturalism excludes the supernatural, so I don't think a 'holy spirit' type role would exist on N&E.

Even if a belief is formed in a properly basic way that does not mean that it cannot be defeated.

In the case of your 'sensus naturalis' we have a clear defeater for believing the beliefs occasioned by your 'sensus naturalis' would be reliable.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nice try hot toddy, but the sensus divinitatis only supports the proper basicality of belief in God. The internal instigation of the Holy Spirit gives me a defeater-defeater. Naturalism excludes the supernatural, so I don't think a 'holy spirit' type role would exist on N&E.

Sorry, but there is no sensus divinitatas. The sensus naturalis shows there is no proper basic belief in a god. My internal investigation gives me a defeater defeater to your defeater defeater.

So, therefore, I'm rational and you're not.

...you do see where this going... right?

 

[ExodusMe]

Sorry, but there is no sensus divinitatas. The sensus naturalis shows there is no proper basic belief in a god. My internal investigation gives me a defeater defeater to your defeater defeater.

So, therefore, I'm rational and you're not.

...you do see where this going... right?

No, you just don't understand the content of reformed epistemology. Reformed epistemology does not claim that they know the sensus divinitatis exists (how would you know something like that?). It only claims that the model (referred to as the "Extended A/C model by AP) is likely to be true given that Christianity is true.

It is meant to debunk any dispute regarding the rationality of belief in Christianity and push it to dispute whether Christianity is true at all.

The error you make is asserting that the 'sensus naturalis' actually exists. What proof do you have of this?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, you just don't understand the content of reformed epistemology. Reformed epistemology does not claim that there is a sensus divinitatis. It only claims that the model (referred to as the "Extended A/C model by AP) is likely to be true given that Christianity is true.

It is meant to debunk any dispute regarding the rationality of belief in Christianity and push it to dispute whether Christianity is true at all.

Actually, since you're bringing up the sensus divinitatis, I'm assuming that you're using it as criteria for what you call your properly basic belief. Using criteria is part of the foundation of reformed epistemology, for if you believe something with no criteria at all to assess if it's true, then you're open to believing contradictions. Which is illogical.

My reformed reformed epistemology, provides me with the way to defeat any argument your epistemology provides. Which leaves me rational and you irrational.

...you do see where this going... right?

 

[ExodusMe]

Actually, since you're bringing up the sensus divinitatis, I'm assuming that you're using it as criteria for what you call your properly basic belief. Using criteria is part of the foundation of reformed epistemology, for if you believe something with no criteria at all to assess if it's true, then you're open to believing contradictions. Which is illogical.

My reformed reformed epistemology, provides me with the way to defeat any argument your epistemology provides. Which leaves me rational and you irrational.

...you do see where this going... right?

I do believe it is criteria if Christianity is true. You fail to understand that proper basicality does not mean that a belief cannot be defeated... and as I said before... the Holy Spirit is the defeater-defeater, but it doesn't matter as it is all based on if Christianity is true....

Naturalism does not have any model that provides epistemic warrant for your beliefs. This is what the OP is about. You can't have epistemic warrant given naturalism & biological evolution... You don't even have rationality.

I probably won't respond further unless you return to the discussion of the OP. You are attempting to use reformed epistemology like a theist - but you are not a theist - it doesn't work like that...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I do believe it is criteria if Christianity is true. You fail to understand that proper basicality does not mean that a belief cannot be defeated... and as I said before... the Holy Spirit is the defeater-defeater, but it doesn't matter as it is all based on if Christianity is true....

The fact that the sensus divinitatis doesn't exist, which I determine based on my investigations into my sensus naturalis, shows that whether or not Christianity is true, you have no criteria to account for any beliefs you have. This makes them irrational

Naturalism does not have any model that provides epistemic warrant for your beliefs. This is what the OP is about. You can't have epistemic warrant given naturalism & biological evolution... You don't even have rationality.

Of course naturalism has a model that provides warrant for my beliefs. It's the sensus naturalis that we all have. It's just broken in most people, due to evolutionary fears. This shows that my beliefs are rational. It also provides me with a defeater defeater for any arguments against my position.

I probably won't respond further unless you return to the discussion of the OP.

Of course you won't. I wouldn't either if I were in the position of trying to defend irrationality. Well, on the other hand, I really try to be intellectually honest...

 

[variant]

Logic is the systematic study of causal relation in arguments. This is by necessity done in some form of abstract system by language, but hardly makes logic a form of linguistics nor merely an observation of reality.

I am saying it (logic) finds it's basis in the observation and description of reality.

Evolution of brains/consciousness would happen because brains are suited to better handle the challenges of reality for the organism than not having them.

Logic can be sound or unsound, valid or not. If a child sees their father putting money under their pillow in exchange for a tooth, it is equally logical from the child's perspective to determine their father is the tooth fairy than to determine the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
My problem is not logic, but whether it can be shown valid or not. A system can fully determine its own conclusions by its own internal rules, as an evolved brain would, but this renders it impossible to thus determine its essential validity - for we cannot determine if it is actually a true relation drawn or whether we are merely predetermined to make an incorrect one and consider it thus correct.

Logic is either valid or invalid in terms of internal consistency but it is also judged against consistency with external circumstance.

When logic yields an answer that is obviously or demonstrably untrue when applied in reality, then you have to go back and examine where your mistake was made.

This makes no sense. Rationality is when something is in accord with reason and thus presupposes correct causality in its underlying propositions. For it would be unreasonable to determine A thus B if A is not really a prerequisite for B. In essence, rationality only proceeds from rationality. Irrationality cannot give rise to rational decisions. Even if the end point is correct, but my reasoning to reach it cannot be shown to be rational, then it is fully irrational. If a sum is done for 7 pages with brilliant answers but an error is made on page 2, then it is fully irrational. Now if we cannot determine the original axioms or beginning of our reasoning to be rational, or claim it the irrational response of neurological action and blind iteration of molecules as naturalism does, then we cannot confirm rationality in the first instance and must declare it irrational in the second. Thus observation of result cannot determine the validity of the reasoning or the rationality thereof used to reach it.

Rationality is a linguistic tool of our own design. We have used the observed rules of consistency in reality to create similar rules of consistency in language.

It simply had to be developed, because it is an abstraction and a language. All the rules of logic are observations about the world, language and how the logic itself operates.

Mistakes were absolutely made during the process of developing it.

Not at all. See my explanations above.

The idea that evolution could not result in brains that could create things like rules of logic is simply unsupported.

 

[quatona]

Your objection isn't clear. You are essentially saying you don't understand the argument, therefore, it is illogical. What is illogical about it?

No, I didn´t say that. I said it isn´t a logical argument, since some logical steps are missing. Something that is not a logical argument isn´t necessarily illogical. It may just be incomplete.

The argument is in the OP. Here is a rehash.
P(R/N&E) is either low or inscrutable;

That´s exactly the bare assertion that needs substantiation.

I don't need to calculate the probability in any hard-mathematical sense. It is enough to say that the probability is low or insrutable in order to get the point across. I can assign a number - like say 25% of the time your cognitive faculties might be reliable on N&E. In any case, just pick a threshold to where we would say "human cogntive faculties are unreliable on N&E, and that number would be the probability). I think, in this case, if N&E cannot produce true beliefs at least 50% of the time they would be unreliable.

"I think 'X'" is not really a forceful substantion of the statement "X".

This isn't a simple example. You haven't related this to survival & reproduction at all (the bedrock of evolutionary naturalism). All you did was form an example of cognitive faculties working in a reliable manner and asserted it as proof that your cognitive faculties are reliable (self-referential).

I was merely answering the question how I go about validating my cognitive faculties.
If it turns out that you go about validating your cognitive faculties in a similar way (and, to be honest, I am pretty sure you are), you are posing a distinction with no difference, and your point appears to be moot.

I will make this clear on my end. I believe my cognitive faculties are reliable.

So you believe that. How are you going about validating this belief?

I need you to show me how a human would come to form true beliefs more often than not on N&E.

You were the one making an unsubstantiated assertion about probabilites. So it´s up to you to support this claim.

 

[quatona]

So a system that disproves the validity of its own basis is acceptable to you? Okay then.

That´s not at all what I said.

I looked it up and it seems to accord with what I thought. You seem to think that because I used what you consider petitio principii myself that my objection to others' petitio principii is flawed.

No, it´s not flawed - it just demonstrates that you are misattributing the problem when singling out a certain view as having this problem, where actually it is a basic problem of human cognition.
It´s like I would say "the problem with theism is that theists can´t fly". I´m pretty sure you would be quick to point out that non-theists can´t fly either, and that the problem of being unable to fly doesn´t have anything to do with theism - and rightly so.