That is the fundamental limitation of this exercise, indeed any exercise. That we can only speak about our perception of things, not necessarily the things in and of themselves.
That is incorrect. Yes, we speak about our perceptions, and in speaking of those realities we confirm those realities about ourselves. When someone else speaks of their realities to us, they confirm those realities about them.
When De_skudd propositioned you with that experiment, your inductive results would have been confirmed (over and over again) in your reality, in your assistantÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reality, and in the reality of anyone who viewed the recording (had you actually gone through with the experiment). Then when they replied via this forum, they would have confirmed their reality (and exsistance). Also, the reality of your assistant would have been confirmed by their reaction to your pain during the experimentation.
Also, can you live as a solipsist and a theistic evolutionist at the same time? If your perception is the only reality, what does it matter if evolution is real?
Also, do you look both ways when you cross the street? And why would you? If your perception is the only reality, what does it matter if that Mack truck is about to splat you all over the highway if the driverÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s perception isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t real?
I notice that creationists are fond of accusing evolutionists of 'equivocation', but you almost invariably use the word incorrectly. To equivocate is to deliberately misuse language in order to confuse or mislead, and this is not what I'm doing. I'm merely pointing out the philosophical inconsistencies in your argument. This is very different from equivaction.
Why do you use a blanket and therefore prejudicial Ã¢â‚¬Å“creationists are fond ofÃ¢â‚¬Â statement when making your accusation. Is this some way of attempting to defuse the evidence being used against you? Especially since your definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocateÃ¢â‚¬Â is incorrect. It can be used in that tense, but it can also be merely Ã¢â‚¬Å“to speak vaguely or ambiguouslyÃ¢â‚¬Â. It isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always deliberate vagueness. But, after reading through the exchange I can see how someone would perceive your being deliberate in your vagueness.