Further there is someone to do this observing and know that they are seeing a librarian or a sailor. There is no “objective” unless you shove the observer outside the frame of reference so you can pretend to get objectivity.
There’s no evidence of any kind that doesn’t require a subject to reason or observe. That should suggest that “no subjects involved” is too high a bar for objectivity, and in order to have a non-empty set of objective facts, you need some other criterion , such as “multiple subjects who are out of communication are able to converge”.
Perhaps, but I think that kind of use of the word “objective” only makes sense in a context where we can reclaim it from it’s normal meaning. I realize such a thing has happened within Bayesianism, but it causes significant confusion for the uninitiated reader.
Further there is someone to do this observing and know that they are seeing a librarian or a sailor. There is no “objective” unless you shove the observer outside the frame of reference so you can pretend to get objectivity.
There’s no evidence of any kind that doesn’t require a subject to reason or observe. That should suggest that “no subjects involved” is too high a bar for objectivity, and in order to have a non-empty set of objective facts, you need some other criterion , such as “multiple subjects who are out of communication are able to converge”.
Perhaps, but I think that kind of use of the word “objective” only makes sense in a context where we can reclaim it from it’s normal meaning. I realize such a thing has happened within Bayesianism, but it causes significant confusion for the uninitiated reader.
I think it has happened much more widely, and the “normal” meaning is a historical curiosity.