Then say "no one has demonstrated that LLMs can reason" instead of "LLMs can't reason, they're just token predictors". At least that would be intellectually honest.
By that logic isn't it "intellectually dishonest" to say "dowsing rods don't work" if the only evidence we have is examples of them not working?
Not really. We know enough about how the world to know that dowsing rods have no plausible mechanism of action. We do not know enough about intelligence/reasoning or how brains work to know that LLMs definitely aren't doing anything resembling that.