supplier

What about the fact that no factual claim can be derived from logic?
So the assumption that everything can be doubted
can also be doubted.
It is not a logical assumption at all, but an epistemological one.

I didn't understand.

The assumption that one can doubt everything that exists is not a logical claim, but an epistemic claim.
Does the same thing exist or not? Doubting does not change the reality of things in the world.

Likewise, doubting arguments is also not a logical claim, because if the argument is valid then it is valid and if not then it is not. Unless you doubt logic itself.

What remains is to doubt the assumptions themselves about the state of affairs in the world, but as I mentioned, most assumptions are epistemic. So the method of doubting can also be questioned. That is, the assumption that one can doubt everything is also questioned and cuts off its branch.

—
Does the Rabbi agree?

Absolutely not.

Why? Regarding what discount?

I explained my argument and I didn't see any counterargument from you.

First, I am not the original questioner.
Second, you wrote in your answer that doubting cannot be questioned because the ability to doubt everything is a logical claim, and as such should not be doubted. Sufficiencies are questioned in factual claims.

But as I told you, this ability may be logical, but the assumption of its correctness is already epistemic.
I don't see how what you wrote makes you completely disagree with my words.

It is not clear that only factual claims are questioned. In any case, that is not what I assumed. My claim is that logical claims, such as the law of contradiction or De Morgan's laws, should not be questioned. But for the sake of discussion, I will adopt your formulation that only factual claims should be questioned.
The claim that any claim (say, factual) can be questioned is not itself a factual claim. It just means that anything that is not logically necessary is uncertain. This claim itself is not factual but logical, and therefore there is room to say that it should not be questioned. This certainly does not contradict the claim that any factual claim can be questioned.

Of course, any factual claim can be doubted. The question is whether this casting of doubt has epistemic significance. Here it seems you accept my words.

I don't think everything is questionable, I used to think so, but I wanted to clarify the rule. A more precise formulation would be why “there is no doubt that it can be doubted”. To my question 1. Why is it impossible to doubt a logical claim and also a claim of fact? Is it just an arbitrary rule that someone has established or is there logic between things?
And question 2. After two people for the purpose of the discussion accept the laws of logic, then a situation is created where if this is the case then that is the case and if this is the case then that is the case. But the laws of logic themselves are arbitrary and there is no absoluteness that they are true. This is actually no different from blind faith in my opinion, absoluteness only exists in logical conclusions after we have accepted the rules of logic. And question 3. When they say in debates that in such a situation the burden of proof is on you and in such a situation on me, is this also an arbitrary rule that someone has established?

Is it possible that I accidentally answered question 1 with question 2? In any case, I would be happy to answer questions 2 and 3, and if necessary, 1 as well?

I don't see where this discussion is going. I explained what I had to explain. I exhausted myself.