WARNING Philosophy Alert
Lol IVI, you need to go read Bartley. Your presumptions and arguments were discredited in the 1960s. You seem to be treating the skeptics movement as a single unitary philosophy. It isn't. Try this for a reference:
http://www.questia.com/library/1327...rren-bartley?gclid=CNWXpJa3i7QCFeRMpgodnDAAZQ
Your position is coincident with already discredited philosophies of science and theories of knowledge. There is a huge difference between skepticism and universally applied skepticism. Though there is no disagreement that a skeptic cannot be skeptical of everything all the time. There is not enough time in a lifetime to do that.
Many "skeptics" do NOT use a process of rigorous reasoning to derive their views. If I said I were a teapot, would you then presume my main function is to hold hot tea? I don't think so. Also its very easy for someone to take the same facts and reason to a different conclusion. Thats logic 201. If you want I can give you a few lessons. Logic does not necessarily lead to the same conclusions given the same facts - the ancient Greeks thought so but we have come a long way since then. It is also not necessarily rational. It tends to be, if used skillfully, but not universally. Its just a tool.
This failure in the logic process is one of the reasons why computer science has failed to build a credible AI. Logic only goes so far.
There is also no necessity for a skeptic to repeat, recount or test their process of reasoning every time. There does have to be a willingness to be skeptical of ones own reasoning however. That is where almost everyone fails at least some of the time, including me.
In order to check reason or to check logic against reality, then a person must be willing to test their reasoning against reality, and question their reasoning and conclusions. Its not that they have to do this all the time, but they need to see the necessity and to check to ensure they are not in conflict with reality, at least some of the time.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain to me your understanding of the difference between pancritical rationalism and critical rationalism? In pancritical rationalism even rationalism itself is questioned.
Are you aware that in post graduate logic one of the first things that gets taught is the logical dispoof of logic itself? Logic is a tool. Reason is a tool. All tools have limits. The philosophy of how these tools are applied varies. There are many different movements within skepticism. There is also pretend skepticism which is all too common, in particular many who claim to be skeptics are simply denialists in my view (they might as well call themselves teapots). They use reason to justify their views, as do we all, but tend to fail to use reason to derive their views. Most importantly, they seem unwilling to test their views. Even worse they fail to question the assumptions leading to their reasoning. Those assumptions are often so deeply buried that people are not even aware of them. I might decide to blog on this, as its why so many arguments that have been raised lately are deeply flawed.
You seem to have an unshakable faith in logic and reason, and also in your own logic and reason. Its misplaced. Logic is a tool, reason is a set of tools and an ideal, but they can only approximate to the truth in anything complex. It needs to be tested. The more important the subject matter is, the more important it is to test it.
Here is one of the most important statements on reason in history. Its from the systems movement.
The map is not the territory.