Logic should not be trusted.

There has been a grave misunderstanding here. Con seems confused as to what I was trying to argue. This is apparently what he thinks my argument is:"(3) All axioms could be false(4) Anything that presupposes these axioms could be false(5) Logic presupposes these axioms(6) Logic could be false"Actually, what I was trying to say is that since our conception of logic and our justification of it could be false, there is no reason to believe it since the justifications for logic are based on the validity of logic and are therefore circular. For instance, the validity of Occam's Razor is dependent upon Occam's Razor itself, since without it we would have no way of estimating the probability of Occam's Razor being based upon some unknown flaw in our minds. And without such an anchor, our entire perception of logic collapses. So here is a better summary:1. Occam's Razor could be false.2. Our justification of Occam's Razor is dependent upon Occam's Razor.3. Therefore we have no way of measuring the validity of Occam's Razor.4. Without Occam's Razor logic collapses.5. Therefore logic should not be trusted."The premises as outlined by my opponent and further summarized by me require the truth of axioms. Inasmuch as deductive rules of reason, such like those employed by my opponent, require the truth of certain metaphysical principles, like the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity."Incorrect. For instance, let us examine this statement: "All logic could probably be false."There are two possibilities here. The first is that all logic is false, which would invalidate the argument as my opponent has said, but still affirm the resolution (not the assertion that logic should not be trusted, but by the nonexistence of our perception of logic). The second is that only some logic is false. However, since we have no way of knowing what logic to trust or even if certain types of logic are only partially comphensible, no logic should be trusted. Both ways, I win.Also, I would like to point out that my objection is founded in intuition, not logic. I am simply rejecting all axioms as valid. The law of non-contradiction is founded in intuition as well."Since I have only ever experienced the reliability and consistency of axioms, I have very good epistemic reasons for believing that they are, in fact, accurate representations of reality."This argument is presupposed upon the validity of logic itself and is therefore circular. Who is to say that whatever you have experienced gives you reasons for assuming it is true? It could be logical for patterns to fit your perception of reality until a certain date, say December twenty-first 2012, then collapse. It could be logical that nothing exists, even you (from your standpoint).Who is to say that you have experienced anything at all? Since there is no means of determining probability (such as Occam's Razor), who is to say that your memories from before the present moment have likely not been artificially created in an instant, and that you will cease to exist in the next? Even if you are what you percieve yourself to be, you have no way of knowing if a moment was real anytime that moment becomes the past. At this point I'm just rambling on about the possiblities. ;)I await Con's response.