It seems that some schools of philosophy dismiss independent reality. My view is that without independent reality, we would have nothing to refer to, nothing to talk about, and no way to increase our knowledge
In outer sense or perception, we've got a world that behaves independently of our wishes, that is interpersonally shared. Space and time are already given or exhibited as part of that reality (no need that they be abstract models open to skepticism). And reifying a general concept that is inferred (like causation) poses little problem since it seems to be what events of that world are indeed conforming to.
I suppose this disenchantment with "external experience" also being the external or "real world" stemmed from gradual realization of a relationship similar to that of a monitor and a computer. Where the appearance and organization of things on a monitor is found to be lacking or quite different in the computer.
A solution to that, though, is to stop calling the transcendent circumstance in this "computer" metaphor a world or reality. It's the "monitor" where the world exists for the first time, rather than being a cheap imitation of an archetypal reality (the "computer"). What's in the "computer" can be called anything but a world and still also be claimed to have something to do with events on the monitor (after all, the former becomes quite bizarre and "unworldy" in many theories).
Personal hallucinations sometimes becoming present in the shared, empirical world have been worked-out or discerned as such for ages, since they're not truly part of the "shared or public" aspect. If one's own perceptual / conceptual system is not agreeing with the rest of society, then one will soon learn about it. In fact, the system itself will indicate this soon enough if I misconstrue an angry dog as a fluffy bunny rabbit (one part of may be malfunctioning, but not all of it).