[telephonetemp]

There is mathematics and physics, at least. A lot of arguing can be, and has been, had here but it's largely arguing about definitions; you cannot deny that they allow you to obtain the "truth" in the sense that that truth can be used to predict and affect what happens in the real world as far as your senses can best tell you. There's no arguing away fire or public key encryption.

[quinnchr]

Yes all of those things exist and can make predictions about "reality," but that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

[telephonetemp]

>that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience.

I am aware of phenomenology and I've read some Merleau-Ponty. To my taste, however, the situation where an objective/"objective" scientific truth makes consistent predictions about my sensory experiences that suggest a physical outside world and another where that truth makes consistent predictions about the outside world itself, which in turn causes the sensory experiences, don't seem different in a meaningful way. Why make that distinction?