If the author really is correct, and all that exists is Reason-Type-2, then there is no actual Reason-Type-1 by which to reject their claims. It's self-reinforc

If the author really is correct, and all that exists is Reason-Type-2, then there is no actual Reason-Type-1 by which to reject their claims. It's self-reinforcing, rather than self-refuting. It's like 15th century herbalists who claimed that certain herbs were balancing humors, when the herbs had actual medicinal values. Their methods were efficacious, but they did not understand why and made false claims about why. We all use Reason-Type-2, and only that, because that is all that exists (if the author is correct), but mistakenly claim we're using Reason-Type-1, which doesn't actually exist (again, if the author is correct), the same way people had wrong-headed, but reasonable in context, theories about how the world worked.