The comments, both from the ones who find it a little unconvincing, and from others who are more sympathetic, are worth reading. Philosopher Stephen Law writes "Are you actually suggesting that if we really, really believe we can fly by flapping our arms, and jump of the roof, then we will fly? Surely this takes the "power of positive thinking" too far?!". Gerloff's reply included this gem:
From my point of view, and in my ongoing experience of life, I do not make the kind of judgments, decisions, and conclusions that you do about what is "objectively real" and what is not. When I say "anything is possible" I mean that in my operative framework of reality, I find it useful to approach the world *as if* anything is possible. It is possible/potentially not possible all at once.I generally recommend people not to get upset about this sort of thing, because in nearly all cases, and I think in this one, the problem is a simple logical confusion. Clearly Gerloff does make the same judgments about what is 'objectively real' as we all do. I am sure she looks carefully when she crosses a busy street, and turns the gas burner off after she finishes cooking, and all those things.
Also, it's clear that even to disagree that there is such a thing as objective reality requires the existence of an objective. Suppose Gerloff says "there is no objective reality". Perhaps she means by that, that all reality is personal, or subjective, or constitutes her "operative framework of reality", or something like that.
But then she is saying that it is true that there is no objective reality. And if I disagree with her (as I do), I have to say that this is false. And to do that, I have to deny what she is saying. I.e. whatever it was that she is saying is true, I am saying is false. So that same thing - the thing she is asserting, and the thing I am denying - has to be common to both of us. We both have to get hold of the same proposition or thought or statement in order for her to assert it, and for me to deny it.
So, in order for me to disagree with Gerloff, there has to be an objective reality. And I do disagree with her. Hence there is an objective reality.