Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is circularity of the meaning of 'what is objectivity' in a dictionary which end up explaining nothing realistic.

So here. Here's another way of it being explained:

"Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.
In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only."
(Dictionary.com)

I believe everyone can agree with is 'subjective' i.e. based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person, a subject.

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The typical meaning of objective is,
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

What is fact?
"that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

What is actual?
"existing in act or fact; real:"

What is real?
"existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:"

What is true
"being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:"

All the above meanings are from Dictionary.com

It is obvious from the above, what is objective is merely going round in circle and do not represent anything of substance, realistic or recognizable.

What is most recognizable as objective and factual [true, real, actual, ] are scientific facts.
But scientific facts only has 'currencies' as qualified to the human-based scientific framework and systems [scientific methods, peer review, etc.].
Since the ground of the scientific framework is human-based, it is based on a collective of subjects, i.e. inter-subjects interactions and consensus.
In this case, scientific facts as objective is based on intersubjective interactions consensus.
As such, what is objective is grounded on the subjective, albeit intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects.

And note, what is the the most real and objective scientific fact is at best a polished conjecture.

Realists will claim that there is something that is really real independent of the scientific methods.
This is merely a speculation and an ASSUMPTION.
To attempt to reify this assumption as real is delusional.
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My point is;
What is objective [fact, real, actual, true] must always be qualified to a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] [of varying degrees of objectivity within a continuum] of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

On this principle, we can have theological facts, truths and objectivity as conditioned to human based theological FSK.
But the objectivity of the theological FSK [based on faith] relative to the empirical based scientific FSK (as a standard index of 100/100) is merely at the other extreme of negligible objectivity.

So the question of what is objectivity must be deliberated within the above considerations without compromise.

Discuss??
Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

OP's "Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary".
How??

To save me time, here's from an AIChatBot [with reservations].

"Here are some ways to explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definitions of "objectivity" to someone in simple terms:

1. Imagine a circle:
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label one point "objective." Now, follow the arrows from "objective" to "fact," "actual," "real," and back to "objective." It's like chasing your tail!
Explain that each definition relies on the previous one, meaning none of them actually explain what "objective" truly means. They just point to each other in a loop.

2. Use an analogy:
Compare it to building a house. You wouldn't use the house itself as the foundation, right? Similarly, you can't define "objective" using terms that depend on it, like "fact" or "real."
Alternatively, compare it to a recipe. If the recipe for "chocolate cake" listed "chocolate cake" as an ingredient, it wouldn't be very helpful!

3. Emphasize the lack of independent meaning:
Explain that none of the definitions provide an independent reference point for what "objective" means. They all just point back to each other, creating a closed loop.
This means that the dictionary definition doesn't actually tell us what "objective" is, only how it relates to other words, which are themselves defined circularly.

4. Focus on the practical consequences:
Explain that relying on circular definitions can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion about "objectivity" when we don't even know what it means!

This can be especially problematic in fields like science, where objectivity is crucial.
Remember, the key is to keep it simple and relatable. Use visuals, analogies, and everyday examples to help the person understand the concept of circularity without getting bogged down in technical jargon.

Here are a few ways you can explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definition of "objectivity" to someone who might not grasp it immediately:

1. Analogy:
Imagine you're trying to explain what a "table" is. You say "a table is a flat surface used for eating or writing." But then, "flat" is defined as "having a level surface, like a table." You're stuck in a loop! This is similar to how the definition of "objective" relies on other terms like "fact" and "real," which themselves rely back on "objective" in circular fashion.

2. Infinite regression:
Imagine you're standing on a ladder, and you try to climb up by grabbing the rung above you. But that rung is held up by the rung below, which is held up by the rung you're currently on, and so on. You're stuck in an endless loop! This is like the dictionary definitions, where one term leads to another, and another, and you never really reach a solid foundation.

3. Lack of independent meaning:
Point out that the definition of "objective" uses words like "fact" and "real" without actually defining those words. What makes something a "fact" or "real" if you rely on a definition that ultimately circles back to "objective"? It's like trying to build a house with only nails; you need something to nail to!

4. Consequences of circularity:
Explain how relying on circular definitions can be problematic. It makes it difficult to truly understand what "objective" means, and it can lead to confusion and disagreements. It also raises questions about whether true objectivity is even possible or just a philosophical ideal.

5. Alternative approaches:
Briefly mention that philosophers and scientists have different ways of understanding and achieving objectivity, which don't necessarily rely on circular definitions. You can suggest further reading if he's interested in learning more.

[nemos]

I don't understand why such simple things have to be explained so complicatedly.
I was taught at school that there are such categories as subjects(an observer) and objects(observable).
Objects are always objective because they are objects, and for subjects, information about them comes in the form of data through sense organs.
Any data is objective, but its interpretation is subjective, because it is done by the subject.

And since no one prevents one subject from observing another subject, then these concepts do not exclude each other, it is a subject may be as an object too.
By the way, one of the basic tasks of science(unlike philosophy and religion, which I also see as a form of philosophy) is precisely to help us make our perceived interpretation as less subjective as possible by subjecting it to criticism and experimental testing.
So, my opinion is that "science", which forgets about this basic task of science(criticism and experimental testing), can no longer be considered science, but one of the forms of philosophy.

[Angelo Cannata]

I don't understand why such simple things have to be explained so complicatedly.
I was taught at school that there are such categories as subjects(an observer) and objects(observable).
Objects are always objective because they are objects,

These things seemed simple to you because they made a magician trick at your school: they distracted your attention from noticing their activity on what they called "objects". This is actually the essential trick that all magicians do: they hide their intervention from what they introduce to you as "object".

[nemos]

These things seemed simple to you because they made a magician trick at your school: they distracted your attention from noticing their activity on what they called "objects". This is actually the essential trick that all magicians do: they hide their intervention from what they introduce to you as "object".

This text also seems quite magical to me.

[Angelo Cannata]

This text also seems quite magical to me.

It is, undoubtedly. The difference is that I don't hide my trick.

[nemos]

It is, undoubtedly. The difference is that I don't hide my trick.

Then I must think that you are another noise generator.

[Angelo Cannata]

Then I must think that you are another noise generator.

Undoubtedly I am. Unfortunately, this conclusion comes from a logical generalisation; this means that nobody can escape this difficulty of being just a noise generator.

[Iwannaplato]

It is obvious from the above, what is objective is merely going round in circle and do not represent anything of substance, realistic or recognizable.

Then drop your use of the term. Stay with 'intersubjective' which is what you have said that objective boils down to anyway. There's no reason to on and on talk about two definitions of a term that in most dictionaries you consider the meaning of as unclear or confused.

You have a term intersubjective which does not have this problem and which you have used as a synonym to the meaning of objectivity you prefer.

Or, heck, do what you want: spend a decade reposting and reposting ad naseum the two meanings of objectivity and ADDING YET ANOTHER LAYER of contention between you and realists.

You want to waste your time like that, fine.

Or you could be mature and use a term that is less contentious, intersubjective. Talk about the different kinds of FSKs and how they arrive at intersubjective conclusions. Ask the realists who think their objectivity is not merely intersubjective to demonstrate that.

It cuts out a whole mess of posting and discussion of a word that you don't even need to present your position, defend it against realism and criticize realism with.
'
But hey, as said, it's your time.

[phyllo]

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The test for objectivity is fairly simple.

If you place different people(different subjects) in a particular situation and they have the same experience, then you have objectivity. If not, then you have subjectivity.

You can see that in science. The same experiment is performed by different scientists, in different places and if they get the same result then they have objective facts.

An ordinary example:

An apple drops for a tree. Do different people observe the same thing happening? Yes. Objective.

Give the apple to different people to taste. They will tend to have different evaluations : "delicious", "I hate apples", "sour", "too sweet", "good texture", "poor texture". Subjective.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is circularity of the meaning of 'what is objectivity' in a dictionary which end up explaining nothing realistic.

So here. Here's another way of it being explained:

"Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.
In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only."
(Dictionary.com)

Your OP forgot to explain how that is supposed to be circular.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is obvious from the above, what is objective is merely going round in circle and do not represent anything of substance, realistic or recognizable.

Then drop your use of the term. Stay with 'intersubjective' which is what you have said that objective boils down to anyway. There's no reason to on and on talk about two definitions of a term that in most dictionaries you consider the meaning of as unclear or confused.

That's just him going round in a circle chasing his own tail. There's nothing circular in the dictionary definition of objectivity, the problem lies entirely with VA.

[Age]

I don't understand why such simple things have to be explained so complicatedly.
I was taught at school that there are such categories as subjects(an observer) and objects(observable).
Objects are always objective because they are objects, and for subjects, information about them comes in the form of data through sense organs.
Any data is objective, but its interpretation is subjective, because it is done by the subject.

And since no one prevents one subject from observing another subject, then these concepts do not exclude each other, it is a subject may be as an object too.
By the way, one of the basic tasks of science(unlike philosophy and religion, which I also see as a form of philosophy) is precisely to help us make our perceived interpretation as less subjective as possible by subjecting it to criticism and experimental testing.
So, my opinion is that "science", which forgets about this basic task of science(criticism and experimental testing), can no longer be considered science, but one of the forms of philosophy.

Do you think that this complicated explanation could be simplified further?

Or, was your explanation here as simple a thing as could get?

[Age]

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The test for objectivity is fairly simple.

If you place different people(different subjects) in a particular situation and they have the same experience, then you have objectivity. If not, then you have subjectivity.

Now this is pure simplicity, which is where, in fact, 'perfection' lies.

You can see that in science. The same experiment is performed by different scientists, in different places and if they get the same result then they have objective facts.

Again, 'objectivity', or what is 'objective', does not get much simpler.

And, as what I have been saying from the outset here, 'that' what every one can agree with and accepts is True Objectivity or how Truly Objective Facts are uncovered, and known irrefutably.

See, the actual and irrefutable Truth of things really is absolutely and Truly extremely simple and easy to find, and know. One just had to first learn 'how-to', though.

An ordinary example:

An apple drops for a tree. Do different people observe the same thing happening? Yes. Objective.

Give the apple to different people to taste. They will tend to have different evaluations : "delicious", "I hate apples", "sour", "too sweet", "good texture", "poor texture". Subjective.

Now this is pure perfection, which is; simplicity at its best.

And as will be soon discovered, what was just written in this post could be agreed with, and accepted, and so because absolutely no one could disagree with this, there is no disputing this as well, which means Objectivity has been reached, so an actual Objective Fact has been found, uncovered, and is being revealed.

See how finding the actual irrefutable Truth of things really is, indeed, very simple and very easy to do.

[Impenitent]

the circularity of Objectivity is that it starts with O

-Imp