actually i meant that true 'reality' is what is regardless of how we percieve it. i now realize that the no observers part in the falling tree scenerio is actually bogas with respect to our discussion, since its a scenerio thats been
played out with observers in the past.

empirical means are the method we employ to determine if 'true reality' isn't something completely different than what we conclude is reasonable.
i agree that making predictions which are not falsifiable through empirical means is not science and that theoretical models [scientific ones] make predictions [what we expect to observe] wrt natural phenomena.

so again i would say that true 'reality' is what is, regardless of how we percieve it and you, i believe would say that reality is observer dependent.
my viewpoint doesn't take into account the physical state of the observer while yours does and yours doesn't take into account the possibility of error on the part of the observer while mine does. your viewpoint i think assumes correct cognition on the part of the observer while mine assumes the possibilty of cognition that is erroneous. so i would agree with you that true reality is observer dependent with the stipulation that the perception may or may not be in error.

regards, tim