What sort of hypothetical case are you talking about where the empirical result would be "unsatisfactory" to me?
Well, apparently, you don't seem to like it when our current empirical answers are "I don't know." The current empirical answer for "Is there a god?" likewise points to "Probably not, but we don't know for sure." You seem to assume this answer can't be right, or isn't right, and so look for another way of looking at the world that will give you a different answer.
And it works well in science -- but it is not the only way of perceiving.
You're right, any one and his brother can perceive the world anyway they want. The kicker is, different ways of perceiving lead to different levels of success, however you want to define that. The way that has produced the most success is Rational Empiricism. If you disagree with that assesment, please explain how another way of perceiving the world has lead to more understanding, advancement and greater quality of life.
The terms subjective and objective are philosophical positions, not given facts.
Incorrect. Objective means true for everyone, whether they see it, accept it, or want it, or not. Subjective means true for one person and quite probably different for most or every other person.
I tend more toward a solipsistic view of reality than most others here, as I explained in Message 140. I don't believe that makes me more "right" than anyone and I'm sorry if I've come off as sounding patronising at times -- I don't mean to be. I think sometimes we are working from different basal philosophical positions and when this isn't recognised there can be confusion. I don't draw the distinctive lines between objective and subjective that some others here do. The extremes of each are more clear cut, such as the age of a rock vs. my opinion about a piece of art, but in between there are shades of grey.
I certainly understand the appeals of solipsism, but to me, while it makes an interesting mental exercise, it quickly leads nowhere. If we assume that our minds are all that is there, that the external world is an illusion, then it would seem to lead to nothing mattering, and could, in a slippery slope kind of fallacy-way, lead to pathological or psychopathic tendencies.
While I admit the possibility of a Matrix-like scenario, I am forced to live in the world I am presented with, whether it all exists on my mind or not, and assume that when other people interract with me, they really interract, and that there are things that are true independent of me. Again, this is the approach that has lead to the most advances and success in the world.
Just to elucidate my way of thinking a little more: I don't know if anyone here is familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality test, but I get INFJ every time I take it and I feel it's a very accurate description of me. Just for fun, if anyone else wants to take the test, you can find a good free version of it here. It might explain why some of us find it challenging to understand each other's points of view. IMO no single personality type is any "better" than any other, and they all have different ways of viewing and responding to the world.
Interestingly, I got INFJ as well.
I think I'd take a similar approach to you; my grain of salt would perhaps be just a little smaller. I imagine that if intelligent aliens exist, perhaps they've found ways to punch holes through dimensions or dematerialise and rematerialise, who knows? Maybe we will do such things ourselves one day. Also, UFO stories would make an interesting psychological study, and I like the frisson of genuine-sounding cases that are unexplained.
An interesting, but off-topic thing to consider is that people were claiming ghost or witch encounters, until about the 40s (I believe) when the term flying saucer was coined and alien visitation became a considered possibility. Quite quickly, people stopped claiming ghosts and witches influenced them and started claiming aliens and UFOs abducted them. It seems to me to be a mental construct that is looking for the current "accepted" way of expressing itself.