However, I will point out that evolution by natural selection is a process where genotypes have consequences, which may tentatively survive or be eliminated. In other words, nature presupposes a critical environment, one in which a failure to correspond to selective pressures results in extinction. The very axioms of logic, such as noncontradiction and deduction, are presupposed by the universe, and the process from which biological forms arise.
That is not to say logical axioms can be justified, or I can, or intend, to provide a "reason" for them. That challenge is an impossible one to meet, thus itself is inconsistent. This point, is one which I feel like a broken record for repeating, but is sadly unrecognised by most, as evidenced by your linked thread on Fallibilism. The equivalence between scepticism and fallibilism drawn in that thread, only arises within the context of justificationism i.e. the presupposition that knowledge is only really knowledge if is is justified knowledge.
If we drop these selfdefeating justificationist presuppositions, then none of the standard sceptical arguments have any force, because the problems they are prompted from simply do not arise.
I at least, do not understand what you are talking about. I recognise all of those words, but fail to understand what you mean by them. Please explain more clearly.I was talking about the difference between trancendent synthetic propositional reasons (trancendent reason for why a synthetic proposition is the way it is) and immanent synthetic propositional reasons (immanent reasons for the same), to put it in general terms, but I figured no-one would understand what I was talking about where I to put it like that.