What could make ANYTHING objective.

[Sculptor]

If what is "objectivity" to you is absolutely independent of human bias, then we might as well not raised any philosophical issue at all. It will be stupid of anyone in this case to seek such 'objectivity'.

My view of objectivity is completely concurrent with satandard definitions:
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Please supply yours

You should do a quick survey my whole post before you responded.
I had posted my definition but you did not read it then.

Such an idea of absolute objectivity [totally unconditional of human bias] is a delusional idea.

Yes, you are deluded - but we all know that

Where is your argument?

Your absolutely absolute objectivity is an impossibility to be real, thus it is delusional to insist it is real.

When you accuse someone of delusion without argument, you ought to expect the same in return.
Now, as to the problem.
All you have to do is present an example of something objective.
Ove to you.

It is the same as theists claiming a God that in absolutely independent in-itself from all humans and its creations.

no it is nothing like that.

It is along the same vein.

What is pertinent for philosophy is Philosophical Objectivity which has practical utility for humanity.
See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Notable, the definition of what is Philosophical Objectivity'

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

AND AS PER USUAL YOU TRY TO RELY ON COPY AND PASTE RATHER THAN ARGUE FOR YOURSELF

What is wrong with that?
I totally agree with the definition above so I reference it [intellectually honest].
I could have rephrased it another way in my own words with the same meaning.
Your point is toothless in this case.

As such a proposition can have objectivity if more than one person [preferably sufficient number of persons] derived a conclusion from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] after filtering out as much biasness as possible.

Your personal bollocks. All you are saying is that any objective statements are objective only as they relate to your POV. In other words you are saying that OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE.

Yes! OBJECTIVITY IS always RELATIVE to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely absolute independent by itself without a FSK.
Can you counter this?
Give me an example of objectivity that is absolutely absolute and independent and without any reference to a FSK?

Note the example of scientific knowledge which is accepted as the most objective and credible knowledge at present. The objectivity of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon the requirements of its FSK and consensus [intersubjective] of the relevant members.

So a credible Framework and System of Knowledge will remove all personal interests and bias to ensure the concluded knowledge is objective.
What is objectivity in this case is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a credible FSK.

For a moral statement to be objective, it must also be supported by objective scientific knowledge and be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

All scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not conditioned by my or any INDIVIDUAL scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.
All objective scientific facts are relative to the scientific framework constructed and sustained by a community scientists who are human.
There were no objective scientific facts prior to Bacon [dcd 1292].

The objective fact that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA [do you deny this?] is not influenced by my or any other person's personal feelings or opinions.
But this objective political fact is relative to the political framework and that of the USA and conditioned by the underlying political feelings, opinions, judgment, biasness of those who voted for Biden.

Some Americans may dispute and will not accept it as an objective fact at all citing cheatings, etc.

However, in general you cannot deny "Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA" is an objective political fact, and you cannot deny its objectivity is RELATIVE as conditioned upon a framework that is conditioned upon the collectively feelings and opinions of human who voted for Biden.

As such there are also objective moral principles that are leveraged upon a moral framework conditioned by humans.

So what could make ANYTHING objective is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge, e.g. scientific, MORAL, political, legal, social, economics, medical, etc.

To insist objectivity can exists as real independent of any framework and system of knowledge [FSK] is delusional! Counter this point if you can.

[promethean75]

Sculptor wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEoc

I bet yer the kind of guy who would fart in my general direction, arncha?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When you accuse someone of delusion without argument, you ought to expect the same in return.
Now, as to the problem.
All you have to do is present an example of something objective.
Over to you.

What's wrong with your reading ability.
I have provided the answer in my post, here it is again.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

ALL scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not conditioned by my or any INDIVIDUAL scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.

All objective scientific facts are relative to the scientific framework constructed and sustained by a community scientists who are human.
There were no objective scientific facts prior to Bacon [dcd 1292].

The objective fact that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA [do you deny this?] is not influenced by my or any other person's personal feelings or opinions.
But this objective political fact is relative to the political framework and that of the USA and conditioned by the underlying political feelings, opinions, judgment, biasness of those who voted for Biden.

Some Americans may dispute and will not accept it as an objective fact at all citing cheatings, etc.

However, in general you cannot deny "Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA" is an objective political fact, and you cannot deny its objectivity is RELATIVE as conditioned upon a framework that is conditioned upon the collectively feelings and opinions of human who voted for Biden.

As such there are also objective moral principles that are leveraged upon a moral framework conditioned by humans.

So what could make ANYTHING objective is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge, e.g. scientific, MORAL, political, legal, social, economics, medical, etc.

To insist objectivity can exists as real & independent of any framework and system of knowledge [FSK] is delusional! Counter this point if you can.

.........................................
No need to be offended, note the meaning of delusional literally;

• delusional:
  1. characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, ...........
  
  2. based on or having faulty judgement; mistaken.

I will admit I am delusional [as defined] IF my argument is not based on reality and rationality.

My challenge to you is,
show me something that is 'objective' [your version] that is absolutely independent of any Framework and System of Knowledge or Model of Realism.
Point is I am confident you will not be able to present something that is objective and is realistic and rational, thus that is delusional [as defined].

[Sculptor]

When you accuse someone of delusion without argument, you ought to expect the same in return.
Now, as to the problem.
All you have to do is present an example of something objective.
Over to you.

What's wrong with your reading ability.
I have provided the answer in my post, here it is again.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

ALL scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not conditioned by my or any INDIVIDUAL scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.

1. can objective facts be false.
2. Is it possible to state an objective fact without having any interest in stating it?
3. Can you state an objective fact without resorting to metaphor?

[promethean75]

"Really “The proposition is either true or false” only means that it must be possible to decide for or against it. But this does not say what the ground for such a decision is like. With the word “certain” we express complete conviction, the total absence of doubt, and thereby we seek to convince other people. That is subjective certainty. But when is something objectively certain? When a mistake is not possible. But what kind of possibility is that? Mustn’t mistake be logically excluded?" - Ludvig Vitkenshtein

He calls a 'thought' a 'proposition with a sense'. I propose that for a proposition to make formal-sense, before it can represent such experience-sense - i.e., the inductive nature of the empirical sense made about the object of experience (x) - it must follow and conform to logical rule following before it can accrue to the learned rules of a particular language-game in which it is used. Here, only the former rule following must exclude mistakes, while the latter can involve mistakes without jeopardizing the truth value of the thought-proposition.

All this depends entirely on the kind of language-game in progress. If I say 'i am positively moved by the valiant nature of the protagonist even though I despise his intent' (x), nothing can be certain about such a statement other than it's logical sense, its grammatical rule following. However, a mistake in interpretation does not detract from the truth-value of the statement. It expresses a sense of judgement and value, and any number of meaningful thought-propositions can be deduced from it: 'he has mixed feelings, but still approves', or 'he believes that resisting the arrest was a brave thing to do, even if the purpose was questionable'.

Now what would it look like here if these interpretations were mistaken? Perhaps I would correct him and say 'but the purpose wasn't questionable, you just have yet to understand it', and so forth.

Is anything 'objectively true' here other than the thought-proposition sense? No, because he can again be mistaken about what I mean when I explain to him why the purpose wasn't questionable. But it couldn't LOOK mistaken precisely because it can't look objectively true. This is strange.

There are no mistakes here, so there is indeed a kind of sense of objective certainty about what is thought to be meant.

One can't claim 'you've made a mistake... that is not what I meant!', when this kind of thought-proposition expresses no certainty in the first place. It remains constantly open in the language-game. How can he know what he meant, himself, when there are so many ways to express this? Where is conviction and a total absence of doubt, here? What he 'means' is discursive and never closed.

Very strange. Very strange indeed.

I conclude that to call such claims objectively true or not, is to mis-characterize their nature. They are neither objective or subjective. Hell they aren't even intersubjective. Things that can't be singularly subjective don't become meaningful if you add more subjectivities into some perceived agreement.

I feel as though I am treading very close to nonsense, and yet I cannot deny having some unusual insight here. My eyelid is twitching.

[RCSaunders]

No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.

Ostensive definitions require no words.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When you accuse someone of delusion without argument, you ought to expect the same in return.
Now, as to the problem.
All you have to do is present an example of something objective.
Over to you.

What's wrong with your reading ability.
I have provided the answer in my post, here it is again.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

ALL scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not conditioned by my or any INDIVIDUAL scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.

1. can objective facts be false.

Nope!
All objective facts must be verified and justified with empirical evidences and conditioned upon a specific FSK.

2. Is it possible to state an objective fact without having any interest in stating it?

Your term 'stating with interest' is too loose.
An objective fact is conditioned upon a credible FSK.
Any one can state 'water is H20' for whatever reason.

3. Can you state an objective fact without resorting to metaphor?

Stating 'water is H20' do not entail any metaphor.

The above questions appear to be silly.

The point re the OP is, whatever is claimed to be objective must be verified and justified empirically & philosophical, thus conditioned within a credible FSK.

If you claim other than the above, your claim is delusional.

[Skepdick]

Ostensive definitions require no words.

They require a "definer". Somebody pointing - a subject.

[Sculptor]

No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.

Ostensive definitions require no words.

Pointing requires a subject to do the pointing. And a subject to observe. When making such a "definition" a relationship is set up between the three players.

[Sculptor]

What's wrong with your reading ability.
I have provided the answer in my post, here it is again.


ALL scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not conditioned by my or any INDIVIDUAL scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.

1. can objective facts be false.

Nope!
All objective facts must be verified and justified with empirical evidences and conditioned upon a specific FSK.

2. Is it possible to state an objective fact without having any interest in stating it?

Your term 'stating with interest' is too loose.
An objective fact is conditioned upon a credible FSK.
Any one can state 'water is H20' for whatever reason.

3. Can you state an objective fact without resorting to metaphor?

Stating 'water is H20' do not entail any metaphor.

The above questions appear to be silly.

The point re the OP is, whatever is claimed to be objective must be verified and justified empirically & philosophical, thus conditioned within a credible FSK.

If you claim other than the above, your claim is delusional.

Are you saying that when Newton or Ptolemy or Aristarchus or Kepler provided their model of the universe they were being subjective?

H2O is a metaphor for water which is a metaphor for the wet stuff we drink.

In what way is the FSK not subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. can objective facts be false.

Nope!
All objective facts must be verified and justified with empirical evidences and conditioned upon a specific FSK.

2. Is it possible to state an objective fact without having any interest in stating it?

Your term 'stating with interest' is too loose.
An objective fact is conditioned upon a credible FSK.
Any one can state 'water is H20' for whatever reason.

3. Can you state an objective fact without resorting to metaphor?

Stating 'water is H20' do not entail any metaphor.

The above questions appear to be silly.

The point re the OP is, whatever is claimed to be objective must be verified and justified empirically & philosophical, thus conditioned within a credible FSK.

If you claim other than the above, your claim is delusional.

Are you saying that when Newton or Ptolemy or Aristarchus or Kepler provided their model of the universe they were being subjective?

Yes, fundamentally they [Newton or Ptolemy or Aristarchus or Kepler] are subjects, thus fundamentally their models are subjective.

So their model is grounded on the subject [the person], so fundamentally subjective.
The model was only considered objective when more subjects agree with the model.
So the basis of objectivity is intersubjective consensus, i.e. fundamentally subjective.

H2O is a metaphor for water which is a metaphor for the wet stuff we drink.

What's that??

• A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

example,
All the world's a stage,

Water is H2O is justified via the scientific framework, not a figure of speech for rhetorical effect.

In what way is the FSK not subjective?

A FSK can NEVER be not-subjective.

A FSK is fundamentally subjective because it is constructed and sustained by subjects.
A scientific FSK is fundamentally initiated by subjects and sustained by subjects via intersubjective consensus, so it is fundamentally subjective.
It is from this intersubjective consensus that we gain objectivity, e.g. Water is H2O is an objective scientific fact but grounded on collective subjectivity.

Note for example, one USD Dollar is obviously objective. Do you deny this?
The objectivity of the US Dollar is supported by the collective sentiments of subjects and their feelings toward the value of the US Dollars.

The value of one Bitcoin is objective at present, i.e. it can be transacted for objects BUT fundamentally one Bitcoin is merely supported by the sentiments of subjects based on a computer program.

If you claim whatever is objective that do not have any subjective fundamentals re subjects collectively, then your claim is delusional [i.e. not realistic].