Your question has a number of problems. You ask about being confident in positions and whether you should believe in them. What matters is whether your positions are right or wrong. Your feelings about them are irrelevant. Indeed, whether you believe an idea is irrelevant. You use lots of knowledge that is never instantiated in your brain, such as knowledge instantiated in computer programs. You may have books. The point of having a book is so that you don't have to remember ideas. You don't have to believe them. So your question as you asked it is far too narrow. It leaves out loads of potential errors in favour of focusing on something irrelevant: your feelings.
You seem to be labouring under the false impression that knowledge is created by induction, but it is not. Induction is impossible. No knowledge has even been created by induction. Nor will any knowledge ever be created by induction. Explanations do not follow from observations in any sense. Nor do observations prove any idea. Nor can any observation make any idea one jot more probable. Inductivism is just another variety of justificationism: the idea that it is possible and desirable to prove ideas true or probably true. In reality, you can't prove any position or show it is probable. Any argument requires premises and rules of inference and it doesn't prove (or make probable) those premises or rules of inference. If you're going to say they're self evident then you are acting in a dogmatic manner that will prevent you from spotting some mistakes. If you don't say they are self evident then you would have to prove those premises and rules of inference by another argument that would bring up a similar problem with respect to its premises and rules of inference.
In reality all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. You notice a problem with your current ideas, propose solutions, criticise the solutions until only one is left and then find a new problem. Experiments are useful only as criticism. Ideas can't be derived from experiment any more than from any other set of premises. Rather, the idea is that you work out how the consequences of one theory differ from those of another. Then you conjecture ideas about experimental setups that would enable you to see the relevant consequences and criticise them. Once you have a setup that works about as well as you can make it work you use it to do the test. If the results are compatible with one theory and not the others then you may have successfully refuted some false ideas. Sometimes a purported successful experimental test will be successfully criticised because a test is a conjecture about something that happened and that conjecture may be wrong, so experiments don't prove anything.
Your knowledge is all guesswork and the only way of sorting those guesses is by criticism. Experiencing something directly is not a prerequisite for criticising stuff other people say about it and improving on it. You can look at their stuff and ask whether it solves the problem it sets out to solve, whether it is consistent, whether it is explains with experimental results, whether it clashes with other ideas and lots of other issues I haven't included. If you haven't looked into an issue the appropriate position is to have no position because there is a criticism of the idea that you should adopt a position: you haven't considered any of the relevant arguments. If you have considered an issue you should advocate whatever position you have when it is relevant. If you're wrong and other people have arguments against your position then you might learn a better position. If you're right, then there's no problem. Either way if you are interested in the issue you're better off having a position than not having it.