There really is no reason to think that "reason" is infallible.
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site
