I’m not sure why Brian hasn’t got back to you, but I think there’s a distinction in his “realities” (I’m not a fan of him using that word, but I’ll roll with it). In those constructs, the way in which something is proven to be true is different in each reality — that’s what defines that particular reality. How would things be defined to be true in an “environmental reality”?

I think the notion of what exactly qualifies 2reality” is a subject that has been explored on many levels and seems to unveil itself the more you look at it. It is amazing that what can seem objectively true to a group is different within another group. This also applies to individual; the mind is cryptic and deceitful; there has been examples where I thought remembering something that actually never happened (as a child).
A great deal of epistemology is trying to understand the source of objectivity and how we be confident in ourselves. Popper actually argued that how much we trust ourselves us to recognize the truth when we come across it is a matter of belief. Popper was a stark liberalist and thought conservatisme came from a lack of faith in men (i.e. since we are not able to choose wisely strict rules and traditions shield us from our errors).

The problem with calling each xyzzy a “reality” is that you make each sound separate, independent, and well-defined. While you do seem to write as if they are, I suspect that there’s a good deal more grey in between each xyzzy than there is white (pi == 3.14159… or “whom should we elect president?”).

In fact, your primary example of the Legal/Social reality is that of determining the funding for NASA, and I think that you’ve picked one there that defeats your own argument. While you’re right to argue that scientific evidence alone in its technical starkness will not gain NASA more funding, it’s also not true that data about space has no effect on the Legal/Social xyzzy.

Imagine if the scientists behind the Mars Rover found evidence of life on Mars? or, more cynically, oil? You can bet your bottom dollar that that specific evidence would indeed make “the politicians will suddenly go “you’re right! I never thought of that!” and adopt their platform”.

Sure, it would happen only because the interests of the technical xyzzy and the legal/social xyzzy happened to align, but that’s just further evidence of their greyness.

If you take this reasoning to the limit, you’ll see that your xyzzys, while real, are merely some of the poles on a confusing, jumbled, gradient map of human interest; physical truth, social truth, and emotional truth.

I’m sure if you talked to some radical environmentalists, they’d talk your ear off about “environmental reality”. In fact, the three realities you’ve chosen are just the three that are closest to your world view. Some would choose to talk/write/think about “Sexual reality”, others “Racial reality”, and still others “Martial reality”.

So, if you accept what this post’s claim, what you’ve written boils down to “many people have different interests, which color their world view, and thus see *the very same things* differently from each other”. My challenge to you is this: what more than this are you trying to say? (or alternatively: where has my logic failed me?)