Fine, but it's not how any of us learned of it either - whether the Newtonian mechanics or the "4 theories of truth". I mean, coherence is sure a an important

Fine, but it's not how any of us learned of it either - whether the Newtonian mechanics or the "4 theories of truth". I mean, coherence is sure a an important aspect of truth, and just by paying attention whether it all "adds up" you can easily filter 90% of the bullshit you hear people (or LLMs for that matter) saying - but even there, I'm not a physicist, I don't do much experiments in a lab, so when I evaluate if some information is coherent with Newton's laws of motion, I'm actually evaluating some description of a situation against a description of Newton's laws. It's all done in "consensus space" and, if an answer is expected, the answer is also a "consensus space" one. We're all so used to evaluating inputs and outputs through the lens of "is this something I expect others believe, and others expect me to believe", that we're almost always just mentally folding the indirection through "consensus reality" and feel like we're just checking "is this true". It works out okay, and it can't really be any other way - but we need to remember this is what we're doing.