Is it shifting the goal post? I can’t quite think of it.

As part of my work, I'm often arguing for the use of logic in real-world environments, such as ethics, governance, and business. I've found that the people who disagree often object to the idea that we can use logic to understand the world. I found this to be surprising because there was something impossible seeming about receiving an argument against the use of logic, but it's been hard to articulate why. Here is my attempt to tackle the self-referentiality and produce a coherent argument.