Logic should not be trusted.

IntroductionSo what can we conclude from all that has been discussed? You'll remember that in this debate I levied two primary criticisms with their respective sub-points:(1) The Problem of Trust (a) non sequitur (b) Experience trumps inscrutability(2) The Problem of Question-begging/The Damnable Point (c) Self-refuting (d) Self-trustingAnd how far did we get in these areas?(1) The Problem of Trust(A) Non Sequitur The fact that the conclusion, Logic should not be trusted, does not follow necessarily from any of the arguments presented by opponent is especially telling. The conclusion, when his premises were jointly asserted, could still be denied without contradiction. All that he has been able to show is that logical laws could (though the probability is inscrutable) be false based upon some failure in our perception of them. But who cares? That led me directly into my second sub-point.(B) Experience trumps inscrutabilityI said that it is especially easy to trust those things that are literally the only things I experience (e.g. the existence of physical reality, that logical laws exist, or that other human minds exist besides my own, etc.). My opponent thinks it makes sense to distrust those things that we have never experienced to be false based upon some unknown possibility, that will forever remain inscrutable to the the human mind, that they could be wrong. Why in the world would I, or anyone else for that matter, distrust everything that is known and experienced based upon the infinitely wide epistemic region of things not known or experienced (and forever out of our epistemically illuminated range)? It is more pragmatic to simply accept logic and reality as basic axioms because, if they're wrong, we'll never know otherwise. It's really all we can do.So far as I can see, the primary point of trust was never really addressed, either generally or my sub-points specifically, despite it being a key point in the resolution.(2) The Problem of Question-begging/The Damnable Point (C) Self-Refuting I am not sure we got very far on this front either. I pointed out that my opponent's whole argument suffers from begging the question, inasmuch as his entire conclusion rests upon the truth of the very thing he is seeking to refute. Thus, the only way for his conclusion to be true, would be for logic to be true, inasmuch as the conclusion only necessarily follows from the premise if certain logical rules apply. This played significantly into my other sub-point in this category.(D) Self-Trust If it is true that the conclusion: Logic could be false, only follows if we take certain logical principles to be true, like some of the ones already described in this debate, then it follows that we must trust those principles of logic that allow us to arrive at that desired conclusion. Thus, the argument suffers from issues of self-trust, inasmuch as it must trust itself to arrive at a conclusion that denies its own trustworthiness. I take this to be unintended concession on my opponent's part that at least some logical principles can be trusted, namely those used in formulating his argument against logic. Conclusion I think the careful reader will see that I have quite clearly refuted the overarching thesis of my opponent and all the relevant sub-points made therein. My highest accolades go out to MouthWash, for this most enjoyable debate. May the future bring him good health and prosperity. But let the very near future bring him a loss, though I trust he'll recover. InquireTruth