Reasonable knowledge

This week I have been thinking a lot about determining whether the knowlege claim is raeasonable and how we examine those claims. From the ToK classes I now know that here are two criteria: evidence and coherence. 

The second one for me is the most interesting. I've become more interested in how scientists made some breakthroughs. Where their evidence coherent with what they already knew? Maybe some new knowledge claims are true and break our false perception of things but are not coherent with our current knowledge? Is it possible to examine that? Is it possible to knowledge claim not be coherent or having an evidence that humans cannot understand?

I'm wondering if people can go beyond their confirmation bias and see world in a whole new way. I belive that by leaving some cultural biases and maybe even current reasonable knowlege can help us see things that are not in our access right now because of how we think things are. Of course in this case we cannot accept all the claims we hear. We need to be careful and do not support arguments like ad ignorantum. It's significant to be balanced and see distinction between an ignorantum and evidence that some people may not understand.

Many discoveries need extraordinary experiments and needs also longer time to truely understand. Like many Einstein's theories that are not proved yet or were just proved years after Estain's death (example here: Einstein Theories Confirmed by NASA Gravity Probe)

 It is only another argument that sometimes new knowledge lies beyond our current understanding of things and needs time to understand it by humans.