Merci, but where's the argument ... that proves/suggests reason is our go-to-person if our objective is to find the truth? — Agent Smith

The fact that you're asking for an argument to prove this kind of presupposes the thing being proven, but nevertheless, I'd cite Conee, who argues for reflective equilibriums which are epistemically but not logically circular (it's basically a type of a coherentist foundationalism which also doubles as a response to the Criterion problem).

The fact that you're asking for an argument to prove this kind of presupposes the thing being proven — Kuro

Précisément! Circular! We knew that! Doesn't it remind you of Kavka's Toxin Puzzle? One only needs to intend to drink the poison/prove logic - it's the same as drinking the poison/proving logic.

How about if we say logic works? I am able to predict; in fact I think it's the other way round, I'm (very) predictable.

Proofs don't exist in the realm of empirical observations.

Truth (proven truth) exists in a priori considerations.

And in a priori considerations all three are acceptable. To my knowledge, at least two are acceptable.

If Peter is taller than Fred and Fred is taller than Paul then Peter is taller than Paul.

This is true, no matter whether there is indeed a Peter or a Fred or a Paul.

Yes, this is circular, and yet it is true.

Or take the other one. Axiom: the order of terms in a summation of numbers is immaterial.
Therefore it is true that the sum of 5+2+7 equals the sum of 7+2+5.

Yes, it is based on axioms, yet it is true.

Agrippa's trilemma fails in the realm of a priori proofs; yet it is irrelevant in the realm of empirical observations, because in that realm there are no axioms, and there is no circular logic. In fact, if you ask Hume, there is a chance that there is no causality in the empirical world, altogether.

Tertium quid?

:zip:

The solution is to accept the trilemma as unsolvable and instead work with knowledge in terms of conjecture and criticism.