Certainly this then makes it difficult to make statements about the nature of reality. Of course it does. So what humans have done for convenience is made some assumptions. These assumptions are convention. We do not know if they are truth. The assumptions cannot be tested scientifically. Is there another way to test the assumptions other than by science?
Can we say that some aspects of reality are obvious? No. Very little if anything is obvious.
Yes, yes, yes, this is all very interesting and I hope you have kept a copy of it, but you seem desperately confused by your own use of words.
Reality is that which the majority of us perceive and can be verified. Look on the word reality
as convenient definition.
Your next problem is that you use the word "truth" as meaning one thing, whereas, like a lot of English words, it has more than one meaning:
I have explained this somewhere before and now, to my annoyance, can't find it, so here goes again:
Something is said to be true if it is a generality confirmed by observation and is testable: "All dogs have four legs" -> this is a general truth: someone will come along and tell you his dog has only 3 legs following an accident. You will tell him he is an idiot but then someone else will come along and tell you of a dog born with 6 legs. Nevertheless, the statement is generally true.
Something is said to be true if it is a definition (usually a short statement with the verb "to be"): "Dogs are mammals." -> this is our present truth. It may be that in a hundred years, we find out that the DNA of dogs means that they are in fact an advanced species of reptile and the truth will alter.
However, neither of these are "the absolute TRUTH" (I am using capitals to distinguish, not to shout.) The TRUTH is unalterable for all time and in all circumstances. This does not exist other than as a concept for use in such arguments as the one I am now writing.
We are restricted in our certainty by a whole army of factors, the least of which is that we do not know everything, and never will.
Now let us move to the word "reality" but first a word from Dr. Johnson, the lexicographer: "I do not have to be a carpenter to tell you that the table is wobbling." this is true, but not TRUE.
Reality can only be subjective as we are equipped with a brain that, to all of us, is individual. However, what we do to firm up the definition is to use heuristics: we take the sum of those who agree on what is "real" (e.g. what things are really like and what they really do and how they really work) and use this as a definition.
Thus, although to the schizophrenic, the voices are real, we know they are not and say that they "have lost touch with "reality"."
Now you may ask, "Are the majority always right?" and I will reply,
"Did you not read what I have just written? Yes, they are from their point of view and if they, in vast numbers, perceive X the same way, then that is, by definition, reality."
And before you ask, reality is not the same as "opinion.""
The method that you use to derail the thread and prevent yourself from being shown to be wrong, is characterised by "Oh we can know nothing for certain!" Well, in this world it doesn't matter. We are all grown up and most of us understand what "true" and "real" mean and we use them as any normal native speaker would.
The fact that it has taken you quite a while to discover that the request to "define your terms" can rarely be met other than by an a priori
assumption, does not mean that we cannot accept something to be real and/or true. If the facts change then so will the truth.
To put a stop to your drivel-filled, pointless posts, "If there were no a priori
assumption about the meaning of your words, then nobody could communicate, but we do. Your agreement upon this matter confirms that a priori assumptions can (not must) be valid regardless of why they are valid.