Objectivity is Intersubjectivity

[Atla]

It is commonly understood, scientific facts, truth, reality, knowledge are objective.

That's a word salad. You say such a thing is commonly understood?

Stupidity and ignorance as usual.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors.

Stupidity and ignorance as usual indeed. You copy the definition but can't make proper sense of it nor properly connect it to other concepts. Hey I thought you didn't read my comments. It might be better for your blood pressure if you didn't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, the silly idea that objectivity is intersubjectivity is being peddled. But here are two definitions.

'Objectivity: the quality of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.'

'Subjectivity: the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.'

1 Notice that the distinction rests on the existence of facts - that there are such things. No facts = no distinction - and then there's no point in talking about objectivity.

2 Intersubjectivity is just subjectivity accumulated. And an opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. The slogan 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' is the bandwagon fallacy made manifest. When no one thought the earth orbits the sun - it orbited the sun.

3 How we may arrive at a conclusion - for example, by way of intersubjective consensus - does not determine the nature of the conclusion.

Here's the silly argument.

1 We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - including what we call facts - in human ways.
2 A description, and therefore a truth-claim, and therefore a fact - is always contextual and conventional.
3 There's no such thing as a context-free and convention-free fact.
4 So what we call objectivity (or 'factuality'} is necessarily dependent on our (human) ways of perceiving, knowing and describing reality - including what we call facts.

Strawman as usual.

You are making up your own definition of what is objectivity, which is also from the philosophical realists' perspective.
I have argued this is based on an illusion.

I have provided a definition of what is objectivity:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.[4]
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

From the above scientific objectivity where intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences is contingent upon a collective of scientists within a human-based scientific framework and system.
The above entails intersubjectivity and intersubjective agreement within that scientific framework and system.

From the scientific antirealism perspective, this objectivity is related to intersubjectivity.
See this argument from ChatGpt:
viewtopic.php?p=718176#p718176

Conclusion
Thus, from the scientific antirealist point of view, objectivity is not entirely independent of intersubjectivity but rather deeply interconnected with it. The pursuit of objectivity in science is a collective endeavor that relies on the intersubjective validation and agreement of the scientific community. Recognizing this relationship highlights the social and contingent nature of scientific knowledge, challenging the traditional view of objectivity as purely perspective-independent.

This nuanced understanding aligns with your claim and shows how scientific antirealism bridges the concepts of objectivity and intersubjectivity.

Your rejection of the relation between objectivity and intersubjectivity is based on the philosophical realists' basis which is grounded on an illusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is commonly understood, scientific facts, truth, reality, knowledge are objective.
What is objective is it is independent of one subject's [or a loose groups of subjects] opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That the theory of relativity is true & objective is not because Einstein [the individual] said so, but rather it is the collective science-physics community [specific group of peers] within a framework and system [FS of scientific methods, etc.] said so.

What is objective about science is that you can validate somebody else's experiment by performing your own, and this validation is made possible by the properties under investigation being inherent to or supervenient upon an object or a phenomenon. The KFC stuff has nothing to do with that.

At the time when all scientists agreed that the Sun resides in a crystal sphere of heavenly incorruptible substance that goes around the Earth, they were objectively wrong. This is so because the objective properties of the Sun were that it is not made of special incorruptible heavenly subtances, and also that it does not go around the Earth. No amount of Aristotelian KFC changes that.

Your theory is very silly, and every effort you make to obscure that under some new level of unhelpful detail is just a new failure.

[promethean75]

"The excellence of Kentucky Fried Chicken is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many ingredient alternatives - choice, not chance, determines its destiny." - Aristotle

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is the generally accepted definition of objectivity [philosophy]:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

i.e.

That the theory of relativity is true & objective is not because Einstein [the individual] said so, but rather it is the collective science-physics community [specific group of peers] within a framework and system [FS of scientific methods, etc.] said so.

here is the narrow minded view:

What is objective about science is that you can validate somebody else's experiment by performing your own, and this validation is made possible by the properties under investigation being inherent to or supervenient upon an object or a phenomenon. The KFC stuff has nothing to do with that.

This is bullshit.

What is objectivity about science is because it is already validated by different scientists [peers] within the scientific FSERC, and it is the validation within the conditions of a FSERC that make it objective in the first place, the more validation and testing with same results from different scientists the more objective it is.

Science is objective because it is not based on the opinions, beliefs and judgment of one [or 2] individual scientist but rather it is objective because it is validated and agreed upon by a collective-of-subjects [scientists] contingent upon a human based scientific framework and system [scientific method and all other requirements].

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is the generally accepted definition of objectivity [philosophy]:

Not really. Here's the IEP version, which is much more useful than that little snippet you have been relying on.
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

Objectivity

The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

The perceiving subject can either perceive accurately or seem to perceive features of the object that are not in the object. For example, a perceiving subject suffering from jaundice could seem to perceive an object as yellow when the object is not actually yellow. Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error.

The potential for discrepancies between features of the subject’s perceptual impressions and the real qualities of the perceived object generates philosophical questions. There are also philosophical questions regarding the nature of objective reality and the nature of our so-called subjective reality. Consequently, we have various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective” and their cognates to express possible differences between objective reality and subjective impressions. Philosophers refer to perceptual impressions themselves as being subjective or objective. Consequent judgments are objective or subjective to varying degrees, and we divide reality into objective reality and subjective reality. Thus, it is important to distinguish the various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.”

You have been trying to mkae use of a loophole you think you found in the wiki page for years now, with no success at all. Just improve please.