Unfortunetely no, since I wanted to add my input on the matter when I saw it, so I only read the original post for this. If what I've been writing about has already been adressed I'm not taking away anything from that, I just wanted to add to it. Sorry if it felt like ignoring arguments, that wasn't the intention. :smile:

But even so, more spiritual arguments keeps coming under this subject, which ignores the scientific arguments, so I'm still waiting for any deductive/inductive reasoning for the existence of consciousness after death, which I have never really seen. Metaphysics have essentially been replaced by science during the last hundred years so I usually find it hard to see philosophy argue metaphysics rationally in modern times. It becomes more spiritual and disregarding true dialectics.

The collective, as I see it, has no existence; the most I could cede is that it is an average of viewpoints — Anthony

How is it viewpoints if each individual use deductive reasoning? If a thousand people use deductive reasoning to reach the same conclusion, that should be considered an objective truth by the definition of the word. Any other definition reduce the use of the word into nothing. If you view it as absolute objective, meaning any form of observation equals subjectivity, even if a collective where almost all individual conclusions have mathematical logic and all conclusions are the same without them knowing of each others conclusions, then the word objective has no meaning or purpose in language anymore because it cannot be used. If anything I would suggest that objective is used by my definition of it and that your definition is called absolute objectiveness, which refers to a cosmic objectiveness outside the realm of human perception.

many people treat science and peer review like God, all the way up to the point of personification of it: e.g.: "the science says/tells us...." ...which is essentially like "God spoke to me; God told us..." Like the transcendent belief in a God that can be found nowhere, so it is with collective beliefs. The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony

I think you misinterpret what I actually mean by the scientific process. What I mean is that the scientific method is the closest form of method we have to reach an objective truth. It's not like saying "God told us" if we have evidence that support a claim, measurements made by many separated scientists to reach a conclusion without subjective opinions.

The collective consensus clearly even violates the scientific policy of requiring evidence for a thing to exist: e.g. where is it? — Anthony

I never said that the collective consensus should come to a conclusion without evidence, I said that the collective in individual separation from each other, doing deductive reasoning, would reach the most objective conclusion possible when evidence is missing. If evidence is clear, each individual would through the scientific method reach a conclusion and when compared to other findings, if these checks out, the collective of scientists that individually reached the same conclusion through the evidences they found, have by consensus reached an objective truth by the definition of the word (at least by the definition of the word as in how we use it in our language).

If you subscribe to the existence of collectives, you can say they exist in different provinces of variable human groups: culture, religion, politics, economics, military, or any authoritative doctrine which asks of complete unquestioning obeisance. — Anthony

If a collective use individual subjective truths based on the group they belong to, in order to reach a conclusion, that is not what I described. If each individual use a deductive reasoning, meaning, they clearly need correct premisses in order to reach an individual conclusion that is then compared to others conclusions to reach a consensus. If you are within one of these groups and you do not follow procedur, the group will not reach an objective truth. Example of this is when in a group of religious belief, each individual truth is that God exists and comparing to the others the objective truth would be that God exists, but this is false, since all the individual conclusions are based on individual belief, not deductive reasoning for the existence of God. So there is no objective truth as a conclusion of that collective. To try and be objective, means you open the doors for the collective to reach an objective truth. Trying means, by any means at your disposal, minimizing your subjective input on the matter. This is essentially what scientists do, they try to use logic, math, research, tests, more tests and so on, to reach as close to an objective truth as they can individually do and then this research goes into duplication by others to verify that this conclusion is correct regardless of the individual.

This is what I mean by the usefulness of the definition of the word, objective. If the word instead is defined as absolute objectivity, it does not have any viable use in our language, because it has no purpose anymore. And if you render the term "objective" useless, by arguing that everything is subjective, you are essentially opening a can of worms that nothing can be proven.

This absoluteness of these terms, the absoluteness of how we define things, makes it impossible to practically define the difference between proven facts/truths and subjective viewpoint. It then becomes a slippery slope in which everything can be said to be subjective and therefor nothing is true. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had the technology we use to write all of this on. If science wouldn't have been able to find objective truths, we couldn't build things based on those scientific findings.

Inventions exist, therefor knowledge of objective truths exists.
Without objective truth, we couldn't invent something with precision.

Where is the evidence of any collective? Evidence is the ultimate authority of science. — Anthony

And this isn't something I've said. Quite the opposite. If evidence exist, going through the scientific method, that would equal an objective truth in the end, as close as we can get to it in the parameters of our perception. The second best, is by deductive reasoning and logic reach conclusions that the collective also reaches. Example of that is theoretical physics, in which a lot of the theories and hypotheses doesn't have evidence, but instead deductive logic through math. Many do the same math problem to reach the same conclusion and others continue with duplication and if reaching the same conclusion, strengthens the objectiveness of the proposed truth. This is the core of what I said and the more that does this and comes to the same conclusion, the stronger that truth is in it's objectiveness. As I mentioned, it's more about probability than absolutes, because absolutes renders the term unpractical in language. If a conclusion has 99,999% probability of being an objective truth, that is and should be considered true objectiveness for human perception and the use of the term.

Ok with an afterlife or ok without an afterlife? I feel comfort in there not being an afterlife, since I accept it and live life by it. To live life and come to a conclusion that there isn't any afterlife at the end would be more horrific than living life as if it ends completely. As I mentioned, it's emotionally more comforting to think that there is an afterlife, but it's a delusion, the bliss of ignorance. It's seducing to comply to the idea of an afterlife since it's comforting, but comfort is not truth and accepting truth as it is and finding true comfort within truth rather than in delusion has a greater strength as a foundation for life than anything else.

Being ok with an afterlife is somewhat of a non-question since being ok without an afterlife is the more emotionally demanding. To be ok with the existence of an afterlife is like being ok with me living tomorrow, and the next day and the next. It has no real value other than just being. But being ok with that I won't live tomorrow demands of me to find a much more complex and demanding emotional foundation to exist on. That is the hard route, but I rather go by truth, than by comfort, rather be as true to existence as I can than live in ignorance in order to shield myself from the truth.

Stretching the evidence and the conclusions and scientific findings in order to support the concept of an afterlife is acting like Don Quijote. If you are thorough in any other field of science, but stretch the evidence thin whenever you adress the concept of an afterlife, you are acting ut of comfort and not truth. Do not assume the premises to be correct in order for the conclusion to be correct. If the premises clearly doesn't show any evidence for an afterlife, there isn't any and any notion of there being one is a delusion out of comfort, not out of truth.

There's no solid evidence for consciousness surviving death. There's no solid evidence that it doesn't. However, given what we know about everything else in nature and the universe and psychology, we can argue that there's a very strong inductive argument against the consciousness surviving without the body.

First off, there's nothing that separates us from other animals other than higher cognitive functions. This higher function is the result of evolution and the byproduct of this evolution is our ability to think in abstract ways. This can lead to illusions of us being of a higher existence than animals, but in essence we are not, no data support that we are. Therefor, we are like animals and animals consciousness should therefor also continue after their death. Animal tests on this does not show any data that support that this is the case.

In psychology and neuroscience there's strong hypotheses about what happens when we die. The trauma that the body and brain goes through at the moment of death most likely fires off all the neurons in our brain in order to try and kickstart everything. This process resembles seizures and REM states, meaning if all neurons are firing, you might get a large flow of memory data scrambled together, like in dream sleep. This is why people can provide witness reports of events that they experienced at the moment of a near death experience. However, there's no correlation with those reports and anything actually supernatural.

We humans also have a tendency to be biased to what comforts us. Most of us have had deaths around us in our life and it's easier for us to cope if we believe that our friends and family are in a better place. However, this is a false comfort based on our need to overcome grief and cannot be used in an argument for the survival of the mind after death. We don't know if it's true, but we want it to be true and the "want" is so great that even the most intellectual mind can be teased into believing in an afterlife. This is probably why there are so many scientists that still believes in some religion, even though they are trained to view big questions with the scientific method.

We are therefor extremely afraid of death without an afterlife. It's a concept that is the most terrifying we can think of. That everything we were, everything we are goes right into the trash can, like a hard drive that fails to boot and you realize that everything you had on it is gone. But everything points to that being the truth. Therefor I think many have a missed opportunity in which they believe in an afterlife and therefor does not care for this life. If you know and understand that everything ends with all your memories destroyed and all the knowledge you had gathered, gone, then you might care for leaving that knowledge behind. We do it with our kids, but we can also do it, like we do it here, writing it out, expanding our thoughts and ideas, sharing them. Too many live their life in a closed space, waiting for an afterlife that probably never comes. That is the depressing waste of a life.

The only thing that could be considered close to a consciousness surviving death would be our gut bacteria. Researchers have found that our way of thinking might be influenced and work in symbios with our gut, i.e the bacterial makeup of our intestines. When we die, these bacterias are the first to eat us from the inside, they live on, feeding on the corpse and if there was any kind of consciousness that they make up with us, that's the only thing that exists after death, however, that might be considered "life" and not the supernatural energy we think of as consciousness after death.

The easiest way of thinking about our life is to compare it to a computer. It's turned on, with a blank hard drive. It has a boot up system that functions as our motor cortex, the things that makes us move as a body, but we have no mind, no memory to drive our identity. So we install an operating system, the basic genetic makeup of who we are, based on previous data from our parents. In that operating system, we gather information, we fill up the hard drive. Some hard drives are larger than others, some have problems, some have software errors and some have hardware errors. But the longer the computer is running and the more work it does, the more information is stored and the more it can do. The more programs installed, the more capabilities it has. Then the fans cooling the system gets broken, the cooling paste for the processor starts lacking, we patch it up, we try to keep it going, some drives start failing, corrupting data, it can't remember stuff well, remember stuff scrambled and with errors. Until one day, the drive fails, the processor fails, the power fails, and the life it had is dead, all data gone, corrupted, corroded. Others cannot access it, it's gone, but some of the data was uploaded, some information got saved to the network and others can gather around this info and use it going forward. But the drive will never work again, it is gone and that's that.

This analogy has one silver lining, if we are speaking in materialistic terms. If we find a way to remove the hard drive before it gets corrupted and we find a way to make it work in another system, we could potentially move consciousness from the body. However, our consciousness and the structure of our neurons are one and the same. This is why uploading our mind into a computer as in transhumanism only works as a copy, the original still remains. The copy might believe it was "moved" over to the computer system, but it wasn't. The best example of this in a story is Ghost in the Shell (anime), it both shows the only way to use a human mind in a robot body, in the way of actually moving the brain into another body, but also, the uploading and syntheses that happen in the end clearly states a new form, not that the others were moved. They died to create a new synthesis, which is a new life form, not the old, essentially the child.

So, in conclusion, there's nothing to suggest there's an afterlife, nothing to suggest that anything supernatural happens at the moment of death. Our consciousness works close to how a computer works and the same rules apply to us as anything else in the universe, meaning when we fail, we are gone. The probability that our consciousness keeps on existing after our death is minimal to non-existing and most suggestions that it does seem rooted in the deep fear of death and the deep need for the comfort of it's concept. However, if we're drawing up a deductive or inductive argument around this, there's little to support any claim that our consciousness can exist after death or go on to any afterlife.

We are of meat and matter, we are of neurons with electrons, we are that of a machine fearing non-existence so much that we deny our existence as it is. The greatest delusion of our species.

Isn't this primarily based on languages that hold vastly different structures from each other and grammar that is different? I mean, I'm from Sweden so I speak both Swedish and English, their structure and grammar is pretty much the same and I can bounce between them quite easily. However, people who've learned languages like Mandarin, which has an entirely different structure and verbal handling, that's where one might find differences in the thinking process.

However, I agree that the most common idea about this is the one about a painter speaking and writing with visual words, the musician in words that revolves around sound, the wine-taster about taste and so on. However, is that a product of the mind or might the interest have been fueled by the language, i.e when interests were forming, did the language used influence what path an individual took?

There's many interesting hours can be spent discussing objectivity, but semantic differences aren't part of that. — Pattern-chaser

I don't mind the semantic discussion, because I think it essentially is about semantics. Without a definition baseline for the word, how do we discuss the parameters of the concept? I think the semantic difference we speak of here is that I view objectivity through the lens of humans using that word to describe absolute truth outside of our perception, but reachable by a scientific method, since we've reached truths that can be considered objective truths in order to, let's say, advance technology. If we didn't have an objective truth, we wouldn't have been able to harness material into different technologies that we have today. If all that research was subjective, nothing would work. So objective is a reachable concept for us, but objective truth for me, requires a collective with a deductive reasoning per individual.

Your definition of objective seems to be more omnipotent, something that is a concept that we humans can never reach by the simple fact that everything is interpreted in order for us to experience anything. So the objective is unreachable, the reality that exists outside of the sensory perception we have.

But I think that even if we are limited in our perception of pure untapped reality, we have already harnessed aspects of this reality in technology and science, which points to us already understanding some objective concepts. A lot of proven theories in science have objective implications all over the universe and that's objectively true for the reality outside of our perception, as well as within our perception.

I hope that clears things up a bit for what I'm trying to reason for here?

Why are numbers so important, here? Shouldn't we be able to discuss objectivity at the individual level? — Anthony

I was defining what the most objective knowledge we can have is. I.e however the individual work, the objective truth is always the one defined by the many if the individual of that group is trying to be objective. "Trying to be objective" is in some ways pretty obvious, it's essentially just like looking up into the sky and say it's blue and not red. If one person says it's red, it's subjective, if one person says it's red and nine others says it's blue, it's rational to deduct that the sky is blue as an objective truth, but the probability is only nine out of ten. The more people that gets in on it, the higher the consensus gets and the higher the probability of objective truth. If one person says it's red, two says it's green and ten thousand other people says it's blue, it's hard to call that not objective as a truth. And while you can say that, yes, it's only that truth in the eyes of our perception, we can only define words within the parameters of our perception and ability to be objective. So the objective definition of the word "objective" should be what we all can agree on being objective, not what is 100% objective outside of our perception. What is then the most pure objective truth out of our perception and concept of how to define that word? Well, that is defining it as the truth with the most consensus around among as many people as possible. The sky is blue, because it's objectively true for all of us, not necessarily for any aliens with other forms of perception.

To define the word objective means that we define it in order to use it, otherwise we need to stop using language since words have to loose of definitions.

But I agree that we should try and define what's objective for the individual, unfortunately I think it's impossible to be objective as an individual, therefor why I wrote what I wrote.

'm sure it's better to keep it to what communicates, what is possible and what isn't, objectively between two people only. — Anthony

For an individual to be objective, the only way I see it possible is to use a deductive way of thinking. You present premises that seem to correlate with what you can pick up with your senses and then you combine many premises to conclude something. But that requires one to be precise and not judge what you examine. Problem is that most of the premises will in pure definition be subjective, so you use subjective premises to conclude something objectively. So can the conclusion be objective? If the deductive method puts forth pure logic, by almost mathematical precision, it might, but it's hard to define a singular individual as being objective.

In essence, I don't think it's possible for a single individual to be subjective, you need a collective to reach objective results and truths.

You suggest that consensus, where we all agree, but we could all be wrong, is the same as objective, which offers a sort of guarantee that something is correct, and accurately reflects reality? — Pattern-chaser

True that all could be wrong, that's why I described it as a rising objectivity with more people in that group. For example, if a field of science comes to the conclusion with a 99% consensus, that is pretty objective and it's hard to find the subjective part in that conclusion, even if it technically isn't pure objectivity. But there is a problem within this binary way of deciphering objectivity.

Thing is, we could argue that there isn't anything that makes us humans being able to be objective, if we're putting the definition of objective to be 100% objective in relation to the objective world. Meaning, through the lens of the unconscious material and purely objective world that exists outside of our concept and perception of it, that is the only thing that can truly be objective, since any observation requires subjectivity.

However, the concept of objectivity is not defined as 100% pure objectivity as in, there isn't a subject mind around to interpret it, but instead a definition of what we see as proven facts outside of our concept and interpretations of it. So, gravity, that things are falling to the ground is objectively true and while we could argue that we don't know that it is true as it's only our interpretation of sensory information, we cannot be 100% sure it's an objective truth. But "objectivity" as we define it isn't about that, it's about the closest we can get to something that we can comprehend as existing outside of our perception and subjective mind. We agree upon gravity pulling objects to the center of the planet, it's an objective truth for us within the framework of the world and universe that we define ourselves within. Therefor, the higher number of consensus among the highest numbers of people who are as objective as they can possibly be with their subjective minds, is what objectivity means to us humans.

Any other definition of objectivity means we need to step outside of being humans, therefor we need to be another form of entity to redefine what objective means.

That's why I defined the scientific process as the closest we humans have got to being truly objective and that form of objectivity should be considered a true definition of the word. Otherwise we open up to defining anything, any knowledge that we have, as subjective and that's a slippery slope down to denying facts in science.

Quality is the condition in which a certain object's function and aesthetic features exceed other objects in the same category according to similar features and principles.

The definition of the quality of a chair is ever changing. A "perfect" chair hundred years ago did not incorporate modern ideas of ergonomic design, so the notion of the "perfect" quality of a chair back then is today considered normal or sub quality compared to what we view quality of a chair today. So quality can only be defined by the parameters of the current time and current designs and in comparison with other objects within this timeframe.

If you compare every chair since the dawn of civilisation, you would certainly find the best looking (although subjective interpretation) and best ergonomically designed chair somewhere. That chair would be of the highest quality of every chair ever built, but never future chairs. By definition, the best chair ever built to the end of time, would be the last chair built for a species that could sit down and based on improving previous designs in function and aesthetic form. However, that is just the purest definition through all time, quality should be regarded of a measurement within the current time and not throughout all time. That's also the only rational use of it's purpose as a word.

"I bought a chair of better quality than before", simply means, it functions better for the purpose of sitting comfortably and as part of my home interior design by the aesthetic properties of current trends in design.

It is certainly hard to define what quality is, since it's pretty subjective, but as a measurement of something better than before in function and form, it's as close to the objective definition of what quality is.

This is essentially Nietzsche. Most interpret that he concluded that God is dead and then proposed a nihilistic way of life, which is far from the truth.

His essential question was, how can we form a new moral framework, now that God is dead. He meant that through the enlightenment period atheism grew stronger and more common and saw that through more knowledge about the world, the less relevant God would be to explain the unexplainable. This would mean that the future would be essentially Godless. If that would happen, that would also mean that other teachings of religion would go undone, in essence the teachings of moral values.
So he tried to bring up a moral framework for how to live life with good morals in a world without established moral framework, i.e he tried to create that moral framework.

One of the most essential things was his idea of eternal recurrence, mostly misinterpreted as actually living in circular time, but it's essentially about the idea of living over and over. If you would live your life, as you live it right now, with every choice and every event exactly as it has happened before, would you find happiness, even in the darkest events of your life? And how would you treat others?

Another idea is the one proposed by people like Matt Dillahunty, who propose that morality should have it's basis in the well-being of the self and others combined and changing according to the most rational world views of the time. By this he means that if the baseline for morality is the well being of your self and others, there will be little choice to do anything that actually harms others or does something that is purely selfish in in the end hurts others. If you build on top of that rules that are ever changing but always based in that baseline, you will be open to progressive changes. For example, womens and gay rights have earlier been proposed to be morally wrong, but since science and rationality opposed this and we now live in a world where both rights are considered part of basic human rights, pure atheist morals easily change framework to include that on top of the well being of others. But this moral view also opens up for it to be the reason for progressing moral values as well. To purely argue through this framework with proper discourse may even be the reason why we have women and gay rights included in basic human rights today.

I believe that the reason many have problems with a atheistic rational deductive/inductive moral value system is that they are too influenced by a moral system they've learned to live by, through family or religion they might even have moved away from.

As an example, why do many people, especially atheists, view curse words based on religion, as curse words? The value of these words should not have any meaning to an atheist, but they still use them as curse words, like the word "damn" or "hell". This is because the concept of these words have been learned through their upbringing, it's part of the world they live in and they have problems moving away from this programmed way of behaviour. The same goes with our concept of a moral system. You can learn the moral system through religion, but even if you become an atheist, many have a problem of finding moral outside of religious teachings.

This is probably because many atheists take their morals for granted, instead of actually trying to find a framework for it. But it's not as hard as it sounds if you properly deduce a conclusion through rationality. But most people aren't capable or have the tools to actually do such rational thinking about this subject, so they feel lost. In some ways, that's why philosophy is more important now than ever for these subjects. By estimate, the world will be composed of 50% atheists by 2032 and we need a good framework by then, otherwise the nightmare Nietzsche had about the nihilistic future of an atheistic society might come true.

"The earth is warming, as it has done since the last ice age. This is objective. Where objectivity gets lost is blaming this on humans."

- I feel that you are picking premisses that only support your conclusion here. Through the scientific process you get as close to objectivity as we can get. But you put aside all the other data that support the objective claim that humans affect the climate. Measurements aren't just about temperature, they are about correlations between fluctuations in our climate with events in our history, primarily from the industrial revolution up until today.

Just because someone doesn't understand how to read the data that has been put forward by numerous scientists and doesn't have the knowledge to use that data in order to reach an objective conclusion doesn't mean that the scientific community that has put forward their conclusions is wrong.

"Another way to look at this is, the same swamp people, that brought you the Russian collusion narrative, also brought you the global warming narrative. They are composed of lawyers, intelligence people, media and marketeers, who are very effective in convincing people that a subjective line of bull, repeated enough times, can appear to be objective fact."

- This begging the question. You assume your conclusion is correct by a premise you assume to be correct, but in fact is composed of another fallacy, correlation doesn't mean causation. You could actually say the opposite about this, that the people you bring up have these opinions because they are smarter and have the facts on their side and there's just as much to support that as there is to your false conclusion. This is not a premiss or argument that works, so your conclusion becomes false. You also put aside the fact that climate research has been going on longer than the "Russian collusion narrative" as you call it. By history of this field of science alone, your argument and premiss becomes false.

"The trick for being objective is to know your own subjectivity, so you can filter it out. This skill can be developed through self reflection and research into your own unconscious mind. Science overcomes subjectivity with a group approach, where each member provide checks and balances for each other since scientists can be subjective, when lots of research money is at stake. This is when the subjective sales pitch is needed to compete for the cash."

- Agreed on the scientific process, but it seems you are concluding that because scientists need funds in order to do research, they create false conclusions in order to get funds, which isn't supported by any premisses that are correct. One thing is that things like climate change has been in research by numerous institutes around the globe, all with different means of doing research. Some instituts have been getting funds without the need of appealing to investors so their findings aren't biased by fundraising processes.

The fact that you choose this subject is strange under the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity, since the scientific community has a large consensus about humans affecting the climate. It's in more consensus than a lot of work in the field of physics and gravity.

If you want to discuss objectivity vs subjectivity, you might want to pick something that aren't focused on political ideology, since what you put forward doesn't have any premisses that support any conclusion in this discussion. Humans affecting climate change has been proven by the scientific community and by 97% consensus which is very high in the world of scientific research. Conclusions by people who aren't involved in this field of science should be careful to dismiss this, since THAT is pure subjectivity and subjectivity out of ideology.

Therefor, the conclusion you draw based on the subjects you chose are a pure subjective opinion about the level of objectivity the science have, it's not an objective opinion about the level of objectivity the scientific community has.

The argument can be boiled down to this.

1. You need to have education and knowledge of climate research in order to properly and objectively analyze the data together with other scientists in this field. Without knowledge of the process and science in this field, you cannot come to any viable conclusion.
2. Climate change scientists are in high consensus about humans affecting the climate.
3. Climate change scientists are too spread across the globe and works under too many different economical processes to be viably blamed for any conspiracy in getting research funds. Such a conspiracy also demands that all scientists have the driving force of earning money, that none of them have the drive force of wanting to reach a true conclusion in this field.
4. Those who oppose the conclusion that humans affect the climate does not have proper education or knowledge in the field.
5. Those who oppose the conclusion that humans affect the climate often use fallacy arguments and purely ideological ideas to back up their conclusions, rather than looking at the science.

Conclusion: The most objective conclusion you can do as a person that aren't educated in the climate field of science is to listen to the consensus of the scientists. To instead listen to those who oppose, the ones who does not have any education, those who use fallacies in all their arguments and put forth claims of a unproved conspiracy would be truly irrational and subjective. If a politician agrees with the scientific consensus and you do not agree with that politicians ideological position, it's not the scientists who are wrong when you don't agree with that politician, that's called guilt by proxy. Not believing in the science because politicians you don't agree with, agree with that science, does not equal the science to be wrong. So using arguments that focus on who agrees with the scientific community as a basis for why the science is wrong, is a subjective ideological conclusion, not an objective one. So you are using pure subjective premisses and arguments on the subject of subjectivity and objectivity, which makes a bit of a mess to your reasoning.

An object existing objectively means it exists without an observers existence. To be objective means putting forth an argument or statement that is focused on the actual facts rather than the interpretations of those facts.

Example: There is a painting of a flower in a room. Ten people gets the task of going into the room and then come out and write down a description of what they saw in that room. All of these descriptions become a subject interpretation of the fact (the painting of a flower). But the sum of all those interpretations is the objective viewpoint. I.e a single person cannot hold a purely objective opinion or viewpoint, but a collective can, as long as the interpretations are presented, as close as they individually can, to be objective.

If you increase the numbers of the group from ten to hundred or a thousand and so forth, the objectivity becomes greater. This is why the only real way to be objective is through the scientific method. Relying on as objective observations as possible, tests that shows answers that aren't influenced by subject views and combining many studies and peer reviews to come to a combined objective conclusion.
Another method is through pure logic, in which a rational argument cannot be false since it follows logic and if broken breaks logic rather than a subjective viewpoint. But such arguments are limited in what they can describe, for example, math solutions are mostly objective, meaning they can't be changed through subjective means.

Another perspective is also that objectives and subjectives are constructs of the human mind. For us, objectivity is an illusion because we can only agree on whats true based on our subjective viewpoint, but for the objective world, if it would have had a mind, would view subjectivity as an illusion of skewed interpretation of something solid.

What makes this thing more interesting is when we go down to quantum levels and the behaviour of particles that change whenever we measure them, or becomes objective when we look for an objective answer. However, if we view randomness as based on the scale of the universe, the smaller something gets, the less objective it becomes. You could probably predict the entire future history of the largest objects in the universe, their objective paths, but we aren't small enough either to be free of this, you need to go down to quantum levels in order to start questioning the objective as equal to the subjective. Objective should then be considered a state of probability. But at our scale we exist in a state of measurable high probability, so we can be objective, as long as we use methods external to our subjective views.

However, a single person cannot and will not ever be able to be objective, but we can be objective as a group, if members of that group has the intention of individually being objective through the process.