Hobbes (from Stanford Encyclopedia):
nameless -Moreover, there is perhaps in Hobbes’s method something like the middle step of regressus. For Hobbes, to know an effect through its causes is to know what the causes are and how they work: “We are said to know scientifically some effect when we know what its causes are, in what subject they are, in what subject they introduce the effect, and how they do it” (Hobbes 1655, 6.1).
Okay, numbers don't exist, language doesn't exist, subatomic particles don't exist, yellow doesn't exist, size doesn't exist, reason nor logic exist, and neither does the universe. Of course you can now happily readjust your conception of "perception" by posting the dictionary definition of "perception." If you do so you've done no more than present circular logic.Not anything can ever be demonstrated to exist, unless it is perceived.
It remains so because we don't go around saying things like "truth" is "truth" like it is some profound statement. Neither do we go around pointing at objects saying "object." That is called tautology.Call it as you will, it remains Truth.
Truth is not 'falsifiable'.
There is a difference between what 'reason' is, and what (formal) logic is? I think so.
The difference between "reason" and "logic" is not that great. Reason is the application of logic, but if you meant "football" is not the same as "playing football", then yes, they are different. If you meant in the colloquial sense when you said "reason" then considering this is a philosophy forum you should've been more clear and perhaps even explored what the colloquial use means for us here?
I still have no idea what you are talking about when you say "real" scientist or "real" philosopher. Is this a case of anything I say not being a "true Scotman?"