Is the core position I'm pushing the distinction between the map and the territory?
My mental map of the world has me as an explorer with a map, looking at the map, and trying to use the map to travel about the world...swapping maps when I move from city streets to trails to freeway driving...different maps each giving different, useful information...but ignoring parts of the reality.
When do I become aware that my map correctly predicts what I'll encounter? When I encounter it.
When do I know that the map will predict correctly the next time? I don't.
The key problem, though, is that I don't have direct access to the territory. I predict, and then I sample. There's no cheat-sheet ... no cliff notes ... no answer in the back. I've got maps and...more maps.
How do I confirm that the map matches reality (is true?). I can't. It's impossible.
The best possible certainty status of a map is that it has, as of yet, failed to predict wrong.
Is that what you mean by true? Certainly that's all you can say about a map.
Or does true mean that you believe that your map will continue to predict well?
My claim is that once you recognize the map/territory distinction...
AND you recognize that you have no answers in the back....
AND we're talking about the real world, instead of the imaginary world of math...
Then the notion of truth is epistemically fishy. All you have is justifications, and maps...no truths. And your thinking will be clearer if you abandon the silly notion.