Reasoning is what you do with what you perceive. Perception is always primary. Science is nothing more than a system for challenging assumptions, which means that it is not science any more when some assumptions–such as the certainty that Darwin was roughly correct–are not open to challenge.
As I think about it, all reason does is create the possibility for sustained perception. When we speak of “natural laws”, what we are speaking about are consistent relationships observed over time–such as F=MA–from which we REASON that these relations obtain in all times and all places. This is a pragmatic approach, but there is nothing in creation which necessarily makes it inevitable. To say otherwise is to claim to understand creation in its entirety, which is hubris of the sort one would only expect from Oxbridge and Harvard dons. Real schools, like the University of Chicago, would know better.
We float in space. It is best to always remember this. It leads to less preventable error.
One reply on “Reason”
I will comment on my own post: I read this after a delay of a week or two, and I well remember the thought process leading to this post, and it is strange to me that what is visible, what is written, is so much smaller than the images and feelings I had in mind. I visualize perception as space itself, and reason as the girders used in the construction of a building, of form, of what is readily noticeable.
All buildings are contingent. This is a large concept, and I don't know how–or choose not to take the time now–to make this any clearer.