In his landmark book on the phylosophy of science "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn, wrote that:

...the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds.

I have been unable to provide George with convincing evidence that the way I build boats produces safe boats, and George has been unable to provide me any convincing evidence to the contrary. With a belief based only on the evidence he considers relevant, George is probably justified in his belief. I submit that based on my data, I am at least equally justified in my belief, if only by virtue my larger data set.

By a "Kuhnian" phylosophy our different paradigms materially change what we see when we observe something. If George and I are seeing different things based on our own theories of what is important, there is not much point in our talking to each other. We end up just talking past each other.

I've stated my position, he's stated his, we don't agree. I'm letting it drop until one of us comes up with something new to add. Until then, I'll just feel gratified that George originally learned how to make strip kayaks, at least in part, from me.

I could say, "Believe me, not George." but would you expect me to say anything different? :-)

BTW, I don't agree with much Kuhn has to say either.