This article is a little more advanced than what I usually write here.

The question isn't so much about whether an external world exists. It's about how we characterize the truth of our best conceptions of things in that world. Should we be metaphysical (or theological) or pragmatic in thinking about how our symbols "capture" facts?

There's a difference between thinking about the wilderness, as such, for example, and thinking of a "park." Indeed, it's because we aim to tame the wilderness, or to guard it as a park, that the glaciers may have recently started to melt. Which concept is more objective, "the wilderness" or "the park"? Or is there some third conception that encompasses both? Aren't all conceptions mere models rather than complete, absolute reflections of what's out there?