I guess I look at things from the opposite direction in many ways. Our primary contact with reality is subjective and the objective (that which is the same for everyone) has to be constructed as an abstraction. The methods of science have proven most successful at doing this and since some of the results strongly defy the expectations of the scientists themselves, this is strong evidence that despite being the product of abstraction, the objective is definitely an aspect of reality outside of ourselves. But the evidence is not sufficient to establish that reality is exclusively objective (completely independent of ourselves and the same for everyone). Furthermore, I see good pragmatic reasons for believing that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality as well (i.e. it means that the diversity of conceptions of reality does not automatically lead to the conclusion that since only one of these can be correct, most people must be deluded and out of touch with reality).
But none of this means that I am anything like a solipsist. On the contrary, my view of reality is pretty much the same as yours. The scientific worldview is ingrained in my perceptual process. It is just that I see reasons to doubt that this worldview should equated with reality itself. I think there is something about this picture of reality which is both superficial and approximate. But it does not justify something so simplistic and obvious as Cartesian dualism, which I see as fundamentally flawed. So I go with the physicalist solution to the mind-body problem and posit a subjective non-physical aspect of reality which is beyond our ability to substantiate in any way.