objectivity was after years this discussion on objective seems to be falling into solipsism eg the recent challenge from frank dwyer for someone to prove that he can actually observe phenomena someones even made the statement that science is subjective and that even atom are subjective this is getting a bit silly and the word objective is losing all meaning lets start by remembering the definition of objective which has been already presented objective adj of or having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept having actual existence a unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice b based on observable phenomenon the objectivity of a thing is not based on whether everyone agrees on that thing eg the world is objectively round regardless of the fact that there exist flat earthers but rather whether it is based observable and verifiable phenomenon instead of being based solely on peoples wishes feeling mental processes etc thus atoms being based on very observable and repeatable phenomenon are indeed considered to be objective rather than subjective even weird high energy physics is based on observable phenomenon even though that observation can change the outcome nor are those observable phenomenon affected by emotion or personal prejudice eg chemical reactions do not change to the whims of different people thus to say that science is not objective ie objectively verifiable is a bit silly as that is the point of science now i will agree that science is not objectively good i will not thereby conclude though that science is not objective now some examples things which are objective a d tractor is larger than the average breadbox chlorophyll is green seawater contains salt there exists ozone in the atmosphere at least presently ozone blocks ultraviolet light ultraviolet light increases the incidents of skin cancer good on the other hand is a value judgement it doesn t seem to have an existence apart from what we give it unless someone can objectively show the existence of an omnipotent entity which has defined good we cannot quantify it touch it or collect it in any concrete sense eg i have a bag full of good now we do sometimes attempt to give the word good an objective meaning e g good has been used to denote strength resiliency speed etc that though is a subjective definition as some might not see strength and etc as necessarily good eg strength inspired by naziism is not generally viewed as good as to a morality i cannot say that i have ever seen a morality strictly based on verifiable observable phenomenon the closest i have seen is some form of the golden rule which concludes that it is best not to deliberately piss people off as they will likely then involve themselves in your life in a manner you won t like this is verifiable when you get in someone s face they will often retaliate another objective fact about morality is that a more powerful group can enforce their morality on a weaker group and thus can at times ignore that form of the golden rule without fear of reprisal now as to whether this enforcing of morality is good or bad is quite subjective by the way remember that subjective does not mean that a thing cannot be formally stated or even commonly agreed upon it only means that that it is not verifiable from observable phenomena or has a physical existence unto itself also note that i have not stated that there is no such thing as an objective morality or that i could not accept any such a morality i have simply stated that i have seen no evidence of any such morality one other thing to notice objective is many times used as synonymous with true and or absolute and subjective sometimes has the connotation of false and or relative tain t necessarily so for instance when a conclusion is based on objective but insufficient evidence then it can be both objective and false as to absolute it is easy to note that while we can objectively show that tnt is explosive but that does not absolutely mean that all tnt will explode and thus objective is not necessarily absolute either on the other hand something subjective can also be either absolutist or true for instance there are some theists who are specifically absolutist in their morality even though they have only subjective evidence to back it up further many a scientist and detective has been motivated by subjective reasons eg a gut feeling or hunch to investigate a phenomena or situation and gather the objective evidence necessary to support a true hypothesis on the whole though i would have to agree that objective evidence is much more trustworthy than subjective evidence later dave butler in starting any thesis it seems to me one should put forward as one s point of departure something incontrovertible the expression should be simple and dignified diogenes
