Keith Russell wrote: I don’t think it’s wise to utterly eliminate all claims which are supported by verifiable evidence, even if they cannot be “proved” or “known for certain”—considering that most things cannot be “known” with close to one-hundred percent certainty.I don't eliminate them, I just don't invest in any of them as "true" or as facts. In my philosophy, what I experience is fact, and that is all that is fact. A true statement is a communication describing such facts as closely as possible, and that is all that is "true".
Everything else is speculation and belief, even if some ideas or models might present useful speculation and belief - like the model that physical objects exist outside of my experience of them, or the model that they do not - like your model by which you "explained" the "optical effeect" of my seeing an oasis that I later did not experience in any other way. That's one explanation, but I don't invest in it as the "true" one.
Systems and models of truth, IMO, shut down or prevent free will. The truth doesn't set you free, IMO, it chains you to it as long as you believe it to be true.