Jesse and Norman gave excellent reasons for us not to abandon the objective stance.
About Norm's post, I agree with > I realize that different observers must see different versions of events, > but so what? In our 3+1 dimensional universe, couldn't "objective reality" > be defined as the state of events at a "time slice," as though the universe > had frozen at the instant chosen? Yes, while you can call any "slice" of the multiverse or 3+1 physics an aspect of objective reality, to be more literally correct, it has to be added that again this depends on the frame of reference (velocity through space): it's as though the slices can be taken through the whole at any angle one desires. Our poor brains are just survival machines, and each of them has many, many incorrect apprehensions of reality. It is literally impossible not to have a misapprehension of something because the nerve firings in the brain only crudely encode the facts of the Earth environment they're in. But even so, even given that for example eyes see only a tiny part of the EM spectrum, and that retinal images are only 2D, the machines are simply wonderful: they enable a mammal to navigate through and know a great deal about its environment. And humans are best of all! With the help of abstract scientific theories (and the imagery and memes produced thereby), humans have proven that they really know what's going on, to an utterly amazing degree. So it's sad to see some philosophers wanting us to junk that for our own subjective impressions of the world. Lee