The degree of objectivity will depend on the credibility and reliability of the FSK, of which at present, the scientific [also the mathematics] FSK is the most credible and reliable; it is used as standard to evaluate all other FSKs.
There are consideration of Subjective Facts, see;
The Objective Status of Subjective Facts
https://philarchive.org/archive/SANTOS-3
Here is how facts transit from subjective facts to objective facts.
I think therefore I-AM.Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:34 am this creation is not a thing-in-itself?
can the thinker think about the thinker-in-itself?
no there is no thinker-in-itself...
do you think about the thinker (another person who you believe is thinking) as not being a thing-in-itself?
no, there is no thinker-in-itself...
The "I-AM" is claimed by many to the thinker-in-itself.
To the theist, the I-AM, the thinker-in-itself is an independent entity that will survive physical death which will either go the heaven [if believer] or Hell [if non-believer or an forgivable sinner].
What is really going on with "I think therefore I-AM" is;
I [the thinker] thinks of 'therefore I-AM [thinker-in-itself]',
As such the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker.
The 'I-Think' that is thinking can be verified and justified empirically by the "I-think' itself based on its own experience which is empirical and externally by others and science as a human being that think with its "I-Think" self.
The "I-AM" as the thinker-in-itself is merely a thought and to think it is real is illusory.
Theists reify the illusory "I-AM' -thinker-in-itself as an independent soul that will survive physical death to either heaven or hell.
Re What is Fact,
People like PH, the situation is as follows;
PH is the experiencer of something, but his "I think" thinks there is a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself.
What I am saying is, the fact-in-itself or thing-in-itself is merely a thought by his I-think, it is never a real thing that can be verified nor justified empirically.
What is the more real fact is the 'experiencer-experiencing-of-something' which in totality is the fact.
It is not merely the thing-experienced is the fact, the real fact is the totality of experiencer-experiencing-of-something'. In a way, this is a subjective fact.
In this case, for something-X, say an apple,
in reference to humanity there would be > 8 billion different [experiencer-experiencing-of-something]s.
To have a shared common fact, we put those experiences [or a sample of it] through a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most reliable FSK is the science-FSK, which enable a scientific fact.
What is critical to note, this scientific fact is not a scientific-fact-in-itself because the scientific FSK inevitably is grounded upon human conditions.
What is a scientific fact is the whole "experiencer-experiencing-of-something plus conditioned upon the scientific FSK" wherein those who are not the specific scientists doing the experiment are in the process of exercising trust the scientific facts are indeed facts.
This scientific-fact as conditioned upon the scientific FSK is objective because it is not dependent on any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment but conditioned upon the collective-of-subjects.
Thereafter whatever is known or described is not the whole scientific-fact per se.
