You've added another layer of uncertainty: the idea that in addition to not knowing whether an objective reality exists, we also don't know whether we're accurately perceiving it.

You're right, I've added a layer of uncertainty.

I just edited my original post to clarify some points, I will copy a part of this edit here :

edit (2015-05-10):

After having read some comments, I felt I had to clarify some points.

I'm not claiming this paradigmatic theory is the one that should be adopted rather than other existent ones, as one wouldn't be wise to affirm that the radical solipsism should be adopted rather than other paradigms.

I'm just explaining that this theory appears to be non-contradictory and irrefutable. It is irrefutable because it is unfalsifiable - as in Karl Popper terminology -: to conduct an experiment that could lead to a potential refutation, one should be able - and it's not exhaustive - to either:

• stand at the exact same place as another individual, at the same time
• or travel back in time and be able to find the exact same position of the original individual, which would be - kind of - difficult to find, because there are an infinite number of positions between a point A and a point B, whatever is their proximity (Real number line).

There is at least one consequence to that : if an unproven, non-contradictory, irrefutable, theory emerges ; then it becomes a possibility.

Thus, it becomes abusive to make the following assertion :

(1) The senses are fallible.

And one should include the new possibility into his judgment, and claim from now on :

(2) The senses may be fallible.