So, do I treat reality different from how I treat fiction?

Yes. I bet that if a fire happens you'll call the fire-brigade, not shout for Superman. That if you want to get something for Christmas, you'll not be writing to Santa Claus.

No matter how much one plays with words, most people, even philosophers, recognize reality as fundamentally different to fiction.

You might say that I know that the table in front of me is solid.

This is playing with words. "Solidity" has a macroscale meaning which isn't valid for nanoscales. That's how reality works in the macroscale and the nanoscale, and it's fiction in neither. If it was fiction then your ability to enjoy the table's solidity would be dependent on your suspension of disbelief.

History does tend to suggest that anyone who thinks they know anything is probably wrong. Perhaps those here are less wrong, but they - we - are still wrong.

The operative word here is "less". Here's a relevant Isaac Asimov quote: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

You are effectively being "wronger than both of them put together"

That's not the same thing as reality being really real, though, is it?

1 and 0 aren't probabilities, but you're effectively treating a statement of 99.999999999% certainty as if it's equivalent to 0.000000000000001% certainty; just because neither of them is 0 or 1.

That's pretty much an example of "wronger than both of them put together" that Isaac Asimov described...