[PatrickHenry]

I accept it because I have faith in the concrete nature of reality. But I do not mistake this faith for something other than faith, of no more fundamental technical merit in the realm of logical reasoning than faith in God the Prime Mover, or faith in druidic tree spirits, if that's what floats your boat.

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that your belief in objective reality (for example, the existence of the moon) is no more firmly grounded than someone's belief in the existence of hell?

[donh]

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that your belief in objective reality (for example, the existence of the moon) is no more firmly grounded than someone's belief in the existence of hell?

With respect to unquestionable proof thereof, indeed so.

My position doesn't differ much from the Hume/Popper nexus. I am quite convinced my notions of reality are better than anyone else's. So is everyone else. Which doesn't make it a very satisfactory root basis for reaching common understanding. Utility will work better for that. If we stop at utility, than we have something outside our mutual skins to agree about, and therefore, can test.