Thanks for your answer, WisdomNotStrife. All I am saying is that there may be a process of inquiry that, when followed, diminishes the influence of the inquirer on the outcome. Which specific process that is, is besides the point, as you say. In addition, us knowing that this process exemplifies objectivity (in your sense, as contrasted with "subjectivity") is beside the point too, as long as it does so, even if we do not know it or cannot prove it. To prove that objectivity is a myth, you would have to provide a modal argument to the effect that there cannot be a process of inquiry that, when followed, diminishes the influence of the inquirer on the outcome. As your thesis is a metaphysical one, I doubt altogether you can provide empirical evidence for it - you have to argue for it deductively.WisdomNotStrife wrote:I never said anything about any process, let alone any process objectively being the process the must be followed.
I simply demarcated the quality/state/condition that gives a perception/inquiry/investigation a marginal degree of objectivity: the influence of who is performing the perception/inquiry/investigation on the outcome is diminished. The process employed--personal observation (like a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes), hermeneutics, rigorous peer-reviewed empirical science, or something else--is beside the point.
.
I find that the argument is either not well founded, or not well stated, or that I do not understand some of your unstated assumptions. Can you provide some literature on the subject, for context?