Sriram,
That is because we have no basis to argue either way. Reality can be bizarre.
Yes we do have a basis to argue either way. It’s called logic. Without it argument isn’t possible – it’s all just assertion (which brings us back to the problem you give yourself with your various assertions of fact with no attendant means of investigation or verification).
These are philosophical issues in which perspective is important. Neither of us can prove it one way or the other.
Only to a degree. Logic is the only means we know of to test arguments – if they’re logically sound they’re considered valid, and if they’re logically unsound they’re considered invalid. In many cases we can test this with practical examples to provide a corroborative feedback loop.
Logic doesn't work in matters in which we have no knowledge.
Yes it does, at least in principle. If, say, a hitherto unknown object was discovered in space then we’d use methods of logic and the tools it’s given rise to try identify what it was. What else could we do?
There’s a basic issue here you don’t understand, namely that our concept of truth itself works perfectly well without necessarily mapping to an “out there” reality. When you referred to historic beliefs about stars being lanterns in the sky, if the people concerned had developed logic only to the extent that that made sense then that
was their truth. That we now have logic and tools that show them to be wrong does not though mean that, one day, future people might not look at our explanations for stars and find them to be just as wrong.
Where you keep going wrong is to think that our inability to know when we have an absolute truth means that any truth claim is as valid as any other. That’s wrongheaded though – we distinguish logically cogent truths from just guessing and we use that process to determine demonstrably real from not demonstrably real without having to make any claims to absolutes. My logic-based belief that jumping out of a 10th storey window will not end well and yours that we’d just float to the ground are distinguishable as true/not true on the basis of their logic and illogic respectively. That’s not to say though that there isn’t a deeper truth at play – maybe a celestial omnipotent deity just fools us into the false experience of hitting the deck hard for example – but nonetheless we still have a perfectly satisfactory, functional, workaday means of allocating true/not true values to our ideas.
Your problem about your beliefs about supposed "patterns" etc is that, so far at least, you have no logically valid mean to justify them.
