Question: My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...

A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?

Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions. 

**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**

See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html>

Answer: 
A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for a lack of something. By the very nature of the concept, it is not possible to "prove" (or really empirically determine, since true proof struggles to exist outside mathematics) the non-existence of a God, because God is inherently a transcendent being who exists above the rest of reality, and as such God's existence can always be reconciled with any given feature of reality by saying that He put it there. If He cannot be observed it's because He doesn't want to be observed. The argument for atheism is not that the lack of evidence for God proves that God doesn't exist, but rather that since it is not proven that God does exist there's not much point in bogging yourself down with the unfounded belief that He does.

To take the epistemology out of a religious context, think about how you could be a brain in a vat being fed artificial experiences by an advanced computer, instead of the full-bodied human operating in the real world that you think you are. The lack of evidence for being a brain in a vat does not constitute evidence that you are in fact not a brain in a vat. So you're just sort of stuck in a position of not knowing what to believe, and really there's no right answer. You can assume that you are a brain in a vat, or you can assume that you aren't. It's a lot more convenient to assume that you aren't, but you could just as well be wrong as you could be right, and for all you know I could even be the mad scientist who put your brain in a vat, telling you this to maintain the façade.

(hope this didn't seem too biased towards my own secularism)
It may be useful to apply your definition of *objective* to a couple of related objects: Anubis, the jackal-headed god of Egyptian mythology, and an actual jackal.

I, personally, have not experienced either one, so that path to objectivity is out. So we're left with being "aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs".

If we were in the same room as each of these, we can conceive of the information that our senses would report about them, and much of the information would be quite similar: Anubis is larger, stands on his hind legs, has darker fur, and the consequences of trying to taste him would presumably be much worse.

The difference here is not if or how my senses would react to them, but whether it's possible to be in the same room with them in the first place, i.e. Do they exist in reality? The answer to that question is objective. Either they do exist or they don't, and if they do, we can sense them. But knowing that doesn't tell us which answer is the correct one.

(n.b. I'm not sure I like the stated definition of "objective"; as others have pointed out, it doesn't include things like electromagnetic fields that can't really be *sensed*, but definitely exist. But for the purposes of this answer, I'm accepting the definition as given.)