Final answer:
The claim that reasoning engines are an all-knowing source of truth and should be trusted implicitly is false, since both deductive and inductive reasoning rely on the accuracy of their inputted premises; inductive reasoning is also not guaranteed to be true. Truths of reasoning and truths of fact differ, as reasoning needs accurate facts for correct conclusions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "Reasoning engines are an all-knowing source of truth and should be trusted implicitly" is false. While deductive reasoning may guarantee the truth of its conclusion given that its premises are true, the premises themselves may not be true. If the inputted beliefs or premises are false, deductive reasoning cannot ensure true beliefs. Additionally, inductive reasoning, although common for deriving beliefs, is inherently probabilistic and cannot guarantee truth outright. This means reasoning engines, which operate on inductive or deductive reasoning, cannot be inherently all-knowing and should not be implicitly trusted without questioning the veracity of their premises and the validity of their reasoning.
It is crucial to consider that the truths of reasoning differ from the truths of fact, as identified by philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Necessary truths, or truths of reasoning, follow from logic and definitions, while truths of fact are contingent upon experience. Evidence and experience play a critical role in verifying claims, which shows that even the most logical systems depend on factual correctness of their information sources to deliver true knowledge.