This argument succumbs to a fallacy -- primacy of observation. Reality is the oracle of observations, which is to say that all observations are parochial theories about what reality is. Subjective observations are the mere consequences deduced from a reality of which we never have a complete observation. Counterargument: "if observations are the consequences of how reality is, then how could anything know what reality is without infinite observations?" Aren't observations how reality is? Actually, knowledge (an interpreted theory about reality) is how reality really seems to its knowledge-bearer. Not all knowledge-bearers are conscious, let alone conscious of which knowledge they posses. If you consider rational thoughts and imagined possibilities as observations, then the primacy of observation is equivalent to the true epistemology -- primacy of explanation.