If you think and see and feel you've just hit a wall, and everybody else experience the same thing it's somehow showing that there's a correlation between our perception of the universe and what is actually out there.
While if i just picture a wall in my mind and walk straight chances are very very low that the wall i just imagined will be there and that i'll hit it.
Now If i draw a plan of the room i'm in, close my eyes and picture the plan and know that 4 steps straight will lead me to the wall, i'll find a high degree of correlation between that empiricaly based model and my experience of reality.
Same goes with everything we ever experienced, even the whole speed of light thing, it makes just as much sense empirically, because the universe we observe couldn't be the way we see it knowing that stars move at different relative speed compared to us yet apparently display the same properties\physics than we experience.
So how does somebody drop the only reliable source of 'real world' information we know and prefer theories that explain the universe and satisfy our natural tendencies for antropocentrical thinking and causation but without any empirical backbone;