If you genuinely believe that facts and logic don’t work on at least 50% of the population, again, you shouldn’t be writing articles with potential solutions. You should be worrying whether you’re in that 50%. After all, how did you figure out you aren’t? By using facts and logic? What did we just say?
It doesn’t seem like that reasoning would be limited to 50%. It is true that your belief that you are amenable to facts and logic is itself based on facts and logic, but that applies to 75% or whatever (and you got the number 75 through facts and logic too). It also applies to related beliefs—your belief that logic is good at all is based on facts and logic and that’s equally circular. Your belief that you aren’t a Boltzmann brain is based on facts and logic that would be invalid if you were a Boltzmann brain. Your belief that you have not been mind controlled by cats into thinking cats are innocent would be invalid if you were in fact mind controlled by cats.
(Responding to an old post)
It doesn’t seem like that reasoning would be limited to 50%. It is true that your belief that you are amenable to facts and logic is itself based on facts and logic, but that applies to 75% or whatever (and you got the number 75 through facts and logic too). It also applies to related beliefs—your belief that logic is good at all is based on facts and logic and that’s equally circular. Your belief that you aren’t a Boltzmann brain is based on facts and logic that would be invalid if you were a Boltzmann brain. Your belief that you have not been mind controlled by cats into thinking cats are innocent would be invalid if you were in fact mind controlled by cats.