You don't know what coherence means then. No way of thinking can fully be justified, but they can be internally consistent. For example believing that you can fully justify your way of thinking, when you actually can't, is inconsistent.Zosimus wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 6:14 pmSo, you admit that scientific realism (a philosophical position worthy of discussion on a philosophical board) is suspect and you refuse to defend it. Yet, somehow I think that what comes below will deny the consequences of such a philosophical admission.
So, you claim that the evidence-based position is "most likely to be correct" but you have no evidence to support that claim. This is what we call an incoherent system of beliefs.Certain knowledge is humanly impossible, some degree of faith is always involved. The evidence-based position is a way of thinking that tries to match the observed world perfectly (as good as humanly possible), so this position probably requires the least amount of faith, it's most likely to be correct.
As for which way of thinking is more likely correct, we use experiments to try to stablish that, for example by standing in front of a train, and the evidence-based view will suggest to step aside.