Seems like the terminology of calling it a ‘true’ belief led to some confusion. Of course there is an huge difference between evidence and proof. Correlation is not causation, Godel’s incompleteness theorem, all abstractions are leaky, etc.
Desperation to ‘know’ something for certain can be misleading when coincidence is a lot more common than proof.
Worse yet is extending the feeling of ‘justified’ to somehow ‘lessen’ any wrongness, perhaps instead of a more informative takeaway.