This is pretty interesting. Society and science don't always get along so it's certainly valuable to study the subjective relationship.
I think most of us who would disagree with you do so from the assumption that there exists an objective reality, regardless of whether an observer is aware of it at all.
In other words, the general consensus asserts that the universe doesn't care whether you or I know, understand or agree how it works, it works that way regardless.
You, and your science/philosophy, assert that since we cannot determine any reality outside of our observation then said reality does not exist (or is, at least, irrelevant).
I still think this is just semantics, even though both philosophies will continue to assert that their point of view is more correct.
From a practical perspective a person coming from the philosophy of a true objective reality existing and science being the process of finding those facts should be no different from a person advocating your point of view. Both will make errors and will need to correct them. Both will have to overcome dogmatic beliefs that are later proven incorrect.
The objective reality philosopher would claim that reality is correcting her errors whereas the inter-subjective philosopher would claim that new observations from other subjects (observers) are correcting his errors.
Regardless of where they believe the corrections are coming from, they seem to lead to the same science, and the same convergence toward what the data tells us.
(Regarding the P.S. That's a very helpful clarification. The terms seem to confuse the issue rather than illuminate it, in my opinion)
I believe in an objective reality too, I just don't think it's a scientific concept. Perhaps we can say that the existence of an objective reality is what makes science worth doing even if science cannot directly access it. I think I can agree with that.
I think most of us who would disagree with you do so from the assumption that there exists an objective reality, regardless of whether an observer is aware of it at all.
In other words, the general consensus asserts that the universe doesn't care whether you or I know, understand or agree how it works, it works that way regardless.
You, and your science/philosophy, assert that since we cannot determine any reality outside of our observation then said reality does not exist (or is, at least, irrelevant).
I still think this is just semantics, even though both philosophies will continue to assert that their point of view is more correct.
From a practical perspective a person coming from the philosophy of a true objective reality existing and science being the process of finding those facts should be no different from a person advocating your point of view. Both will make errors and will need to correct them. Both will have to overcome dogmatic beliefs that are later proven incorrect.
The objective reality philosopher would claim that reality is correcting her errors whereas the inter-subjective philosopher would claim that new observations from other subjects (observers) are correcting his errors.
Regardless of where they believe the corrections are coming from, they seem to lead to the same science, and the same convergence toward what the data tells us.
(Regarding the P.S. That's a very helpful clarification. The terms seem to confuse the issue rather than illuminate it, in my opinion)