we are both alleging uncertain, if not demonstrably false (in identical manner) allegations.
you believe there is objective truth despite truth being subjective, measure by ultility, dimension, or other prejudice presumption.
i believe while there is no objective truth, there are objects or topics one can sort towards though and one can reasonably discern relation of allegation to other axioms/premise.
so why is there such a disagreement? well knowledge is dependant on truth right? what is truth dependant on? well evidence in part (sometimes) but also culture. if you are asked how hot something is you might say it is 20 degrees Fahrenheit, but in that you had a subjective claim, not an objective one. degrees is an objective unit, but not fahrenheit. so the object oriented subjective analysis, is still subjective to presumption of meaning.
so asking to account for the existence of logic is the exact same contradiction of requesting an objective subject, it can’t be provided because once something is dependant on mind it can’t not be dependant on mind for one would have to use mind to ‘alledgedly remove it, and you couldn’t test it afterward without reintroducing mind.
so account for knowledge and truth without assuming it.
we need presumptions to have meaningful discourse. you need to presume truth (including it’s definition), and relevance of evidence. i need to presume the capacity for things to be granted attributes to grant figurtive meanings, and then grant even a subjective analysis of reality. and i need that subjective or mindful analysis to have cogent conversation with others regarding topics. i don’t need the same presumption of truth, but i do still need a presumption to be granted in order to express myself in cogent manner.
you argue for truth. sometimes, but here is the problem you don’t merely argue that you are right. which already set yourself up for a downfall, you also argue for many divergent and incoherent ideas. “we know our reasoning is vallid because it produces desired results in the real world” that doesn’t make your reasoning vallid, it doesn’t even make your logic vallid, it just stipulates anecdotal coincidence.
i argue for vallid allegations: accuracy, social acceptance, pragmatic utility- be damned.