> an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct

How can you establish "correctness" without something like the scientific method? How do you even bind loosely-defined english to verifiable claims to real-life referents without agreeing with others on terms? No, you're chosen simple, comforting delusion over anything resembling objective truth.

> This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth

Yes, truth is an apriori concept; objective truth is a silly delusion. Coherence is generally a much stronger concept anyway.