Felix, I think I’ve refuted much of what you’ve proposed… I can see you dont want to address that but to prevent this thread from becoming a home for statements without justification, let me repost some of it:
When one scientist corroborates the findings another, and those findings support of a tested model, then it strengthens confidence that the model more closely corresponds to reality.
All we can know is that a working scientific model creates a reality.
[i]As Hawking and Mlodinow point out in “The Grand Design”, a model is good if it meets four criteria:
It’s elegant;[/i]
Subjective valuation, negation of objectivity, of “reality”
It contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements;
Because we must be certain that we understand everything about something before we can accept that it exists
It agrees with and explains all existing observations;
This has never been the case for any scientific law, so this is an empty point
and it makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.
Pertaining strictly to observations of occurrences of which the favored model allows interpretation
We select the best models based on their validity, reliability, predictability, and perceived match to reality.
But it has to be the reality that we want to be real, the reality over which we can exert the maximum control. Our measure of control over reality determines what is its “true nature”.
Even though there is no POV outside of our brains, we are justified in believing in reality, and that we can come closer to knowing it through science even though our models aren’t perfect.
And we refuse to draw conclusions from the fact that this reality we think we are gaining understanding of seems to suffer, change and even perish under our attempts to understand it. Apparently, reality is just not significant to itself for us - only our control is.