What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)

Then we'd know our eyes didn't work either, because they're based on the same optical principles. If everybody's eyes are "broken" in the same way, then you're back to the problem of not knowing if there's really a reality or not, but being unable to discern any kind of difference.A difference that is no difference is no difference. You're wondering if instrumentality is as valid a method of observation as our own senses, but ignoring the fact that our own senses are also instruments.Observation is theory-laden, but not in the way I think you think. Theory shouldn't affect the outcome of an observation, if you're observing properly, but theory can affect the observations you choose to make.

It's the same theory as the telescopes (and no, saying that isn't a "theory".) And yet if it's wrong, we'll never know.Asking "what can we know?" is a great question, so I'm glad you ask it. As is "how can we know we know what we know?" But when you hit the point where there's no way to tell between knowing something and thinking you know it (like how there's no way to tell the difference between knowing reality is real and just thinking it is) it's time to stop, because a difference that is no difference is no difference. It just doesn't matter at that point. By definition of the terms, I can know for certain that there's no way to distinguish between "real" reality and a perfect simulacrum (it's tautological). If it's not perfect, then the scientific method will reveal that.All bases are covered. The scientific method can discern all that is discernable. Nothing can discern that that is indiscernable. So what's the problem?