As an agnostic, I recognize the limits of my subjective experience. I’m perfectly capable of functioning from a tentative understanding of reality. I do not try to convince myself (or others) that I can see beyond my subjective limitations.
I think I just need to repeat my stance more, as you do not yet seem to grasp it. Maybe repetition is the key...
>>>"What if you found a logical error in my argument that I was accepting a false statement as true or a true statement as false?">>"How can you consider solipsism absurd if you treat the assumption that what we see is real as only *per se* correct?">"Do you work with the concept of a chair as tentative?">"If you lack full conviction of the existence of an electron then how do you arrive at conviction of an external reality? Is it that you can experience certain objects more directly than an electron? Do you elevate your sense impressions of direct experiences to a higher level than scientific discoveries which may have much more statistical accuracy than your senses?">"What if I said strings exist and you asked me to define a string and all I did was scratch my head? Why accept my claim when I have not given you solid justification for the existence of my proposed entity?">"But, what makes you so sure that an objective truth exists? How does this appeal to realism of truth win you over?">"You need to establish your position with an exact rendering on how you can commit to an ontological rendering of scientific theories and just what kind of ontological commitment that is (including how you justify that commitment)."