Why the Need for Objectivity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term 'objectivity' is usually contentious whenever it is brought up for discussion.

See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

I have listed a definition [..I agree with] of what is Philosophical Objectivity;

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I believe, OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34143

From the above, I believe what is most critical is
Why the Need for Objectivity?
What is the utility to humanity in establishing the term 'objectivity'.

Without any consideration for the utilities from the term 'objectivity' posters like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, et. al. argued 'what is objectivity' MUST be independent of personal opinions and beliefs, as such there is no such thing as objective moral principles nor statement.
To them, what is objective must be absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions and beliefs.

If that is what is objective, then what about scientific facts which are objective but are not independent of the human conditions, the scientific framework being conditioned by human scientists.

I believe what is objectivity cannot be something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions but rather is relative to the human conditions [framework and model of knowledge by humans].

What is most critical on this aspect of objectivity [variable and relative] is how well it has serves humanity with its utilities and taken into account its credibility. The scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objective facts at present thus the standard.

So moral facts can be objective provided it is supported by a credible FSK with the scientific FSK as its backing.

Views?

[FlashDangerpants]

The title of the thread suggests that you are finally thinkig in terms of what the thing is used for. Yest sadly the content of the OP shows that you are only capable of examining what it is made of.

So think it through, we have this construct of "objectivity" that we use for something, start with what function it needs to filfil BEFORE trying to sell your dumb fucking "FSK" thing for the ten thousandth time.

[Nick_A]

V A

From the above, I believe what is most critical is
Why the Need for Objectivity?
What is the utility to humanity in establishing the term 'objectivity'.

Objectivity is only useful for the slim minority with the need and the will to escape the prison of Plato's cave. For those with the need to live by the subjective habits of "wretched contentment" described by Nietzsche, the struggle for superiority and personal justification are sufficient to replace the conscious human need for objectivity which asks: "who am I and what am I actually doing"?.

[Scott Mayers]

The term 'objectivity' is usually contentious whenever it is brought up for discussion.

See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

I have listed a definition [..I agree with] of what is Philosophical Objectivity;

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I believe, OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34143

From the above, I believe what is most critical is
Why the Need for Objectivity?
What is the utility to humanity in establishing the term 'objectivity'.

Without any consideration for the utilities from the term 'objectivity' posters like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, et. al. argued 'what is objectivity' MUST be independent of personal opinions and beliefs, as such there is no such thing as objective moral principles nor statement.
To them, what is objective must be absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions and beliefs.

If that is what is objective, then what about scientific facts which are objective but are not independent of the human conditions, the scientific framework being conditioned by human scientists.

I believe what is objectivity cannot be something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions but rather is relative to the human conditions [framework and model of knowledge by humans].

What is most critical on this aspect of objectivity [variable and relative] is how well it has serves humanity with its utilities and taken into account its credibility. The scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objective facts at present thus the standard.

So moral facts can be objective provided it is supported by a credible FSK with the scientific FSK as its backing.

Views?

If you are speaking of scientific 'objectivity', this is NOT the same as the philosophical definition. Scientific objectivity is a literal concensus of many subjective observers with only the ideal of providing proof based upon neutrally shared means of observing and processing that requires expressing clearly how anyone can repeat the process in hopes that they too may infer the same conclusion. Philosophical 'objectivity' is an ideal perspective of a neutral 'observer' whereas science's ideal is an approximation based upon assuming the least common denominator among people's capacity to observe, interpret, and reason in as close to the same way that any arbitrary person may be hopefully able to repeat and agree.

As for hard sciences, the scientific 'objectivity' is also incomparable to the social sciences. And it is worse for deciding what is 'socially' objective regarding morals. The utililitarian ideal though is appropriate to seek. Scientifically, one could try to make computer models of human behavior and set it to run to test what might occur under some specific set of ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term 'objectivity' is usually contentious whenever it is brought up for discussion.

See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

I have listed a definition [..I agree with] of what is Philosophical Objectivity;

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I believe, OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34143

From the above, I believe what is most critical is
Why the Need for Objectivity?
What is the utility to humanity in establishing the term 'objectivity'.

Without any consideration for the utilities from the term 'objectivity' posters like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, et. al. argued 'what is objectivity' MUST be independent of personal opinions and beliefs, as such there is no such thing as objective moral principles nor statement.
To them, what is objective must be absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions and beliefs.

If that is what is objective, then what about scientific facts which are objective but are not independent of the human conditions, the scientific framework being conditioned by human scientists.

I believe what is objectivity cannot be something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions but rather is relative to the human conditions [framework and model of knowledge by humans].

What is most critical on this aspect of objectivity [variable and relative] is how well it has serves humanity with its utilities and taken into account its credibility. The scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objective facts at present thus the standard.

So moral facts can be objective provided it is supported by a credible FSK with the scientific FSK as its backing.

Views?

If you are speaking of scientific 'objectivity', this is NOT the same as the philosophical definition.

Scientific objectivity is a literal concensus of many subjective observers with only the ideal of providing proof based upon neutrally shared means of observing and processing that requires expressing clearly how anyone can repeat the process in hopes that they too may infer the same conclusion.
Philosophical 'objectivity' is an ideal perspective of a neutral 'observer' whereas science's ideal is an approximation based upon assuming the least common denominator among people's capacity to observe, interpret, and reason in as close to the same way that any arbitrary person may be hopefully able to repeat and agree.

As for hard sciences, the scientific 'objectivity' is also incomparable to the social sciences. And it is worse for deciding what is 'socially' objective regarding morals. The utililitarian ideal though is appropriate to seek. Scientifically, one could try to make computer models of human behavior and set it to run to test what might occur under some specific set of ethics.

Philosophical objectivity is fundamental. [not based on one subject but upon a FSK]

Scientific objectivity is a subset of philosophical objectivity [not based on one scientist nor subject but only on the scientific FSK].

Physics objectivity is a subset of scientific [philosophical] objectivity [not based on one Physicist nor subject but only on the Physics FSK]. The Physics FSK comprised on the Classical, Einsteinian, Quantum Physics FSK.

The above principle of objectivity is applicable to all other fields of knowledge and their specific FSK.

The need for these FSK i.e. objectivity is to "fix the goalpost" [not absolutely] to promote consistency and whatever utility that can be derived from them.

As I had stated, there are degrees to the trustworthiness and credibility to the various FSKs with the scientific FSK as the most credible [along with the mathematic FSK].

[Scott Mayers]

If you are speaking of scientific 'objectivity', this is NOT the same as the philosophical definition.

Scientific objectivity is a literal concensus of many subjective observers with only the ideal of providing proof based upon neutrally shared means of observing and processing that requires expressing clearly how anyone can repeat the process in hopes that they too may infer the same conclusion.
Philosophical 'objectivity' is an ideal perspective of a neutral 'observer' whereas science's ideal is an approximation based upon assuming the least common denominator among people's capacity to observe, interpret, and reason in as close to the same way that any arbitrary person may be hopefully able to repeat and agree.

As for hard sciences, the scientific 'objectivity' is also incomparable to the social sciences. And it is worse for deciding what is 'socially' objective regarding morals. The utililitarian ideal though is appropriate to seek. Scientifically, one could try to make computer models of human behavior and set it to run to test what might occur under some specific set of ethics.

Philosophical objectivity is fundamental. [not based on one subject but upon a FSK]

Scientific objectivity is a subset of philosophical objectivity [not based on one scientist nor subject but only on the scientific FSK].

Physics objectivity is a subset of scientific [philosophical] objectivity [not based on one Physicist nor subject but only on the Physics FSK]. The Physics FSK comprised on the Classical, Einsteinian, Quantum Physics FSK.

The above principle of objectivity is applicable to all other fields of knowledge and their specific FSK.

The need for these FSK i.e. objectivity is to "fix the goalpost" [not absolutely] to promote consistency and whatever utility that can be derived from them.

As I had stated, there are degrees to the trustworthiness and credibility to the various FSKs with the scientific FSK as the most credible [along with the mathematic FSK].

You WANT to argue that morals are 'real' independent of humanity in some form as your OP's summation statement, "So moral facts can be objective provided it is supported by a credible FSK with the scientific FSK as its backing."

Because "FSK" is not a popular acronym, your use of it is proprietary and not necessary unless we all agree to it's significance. It also makes it appear as 'authoritative' without qualification. Please tell me what it is again, who the source author of it is, and then what in it conditionally assures morality is non-subjective. [Note that I choose "non-subjective" here to avoid contentious differences about the meaning of "objectivity". It would be more productive for me if you could thus prove how morality is NOT 'subject' to unique social existence.]

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are speaking of scientific 'objectivity', this is NOT the same as the philosophical definition.

Scientific objectivity is a literal concensus of many subjective observers with only the ideal of providing proof based upon neutrally shared means of observing and processing that requires expressing clearly how anyone can repeat the process in hopes that they too may infer the same conclusion.
Philosophical 'objectivity' is an ideal perspective of a neutral 'observer' whereas science's ideal is an approximation based upon assuming the least common denominator among people's capacity to observe, interpret, and reason in as close to the same way that any arbitrary person may be hopefully able to repeat and agree.

As for hard sciences, the scientific 'objectivity' is also incomparable to the social sciences. And it is worse for deciding what is 'socially' objective regarding morals. The utililitarian ideal though is appropriate to seek. Scientifically, one could try to make computer models of human behavior and set it to run to test what might occur under some specific set of ethics.

Philosophical objectivity is fundamental. [not based on one subject but upon a FSK]

Scientific objectivity is a subset of philosophical objectivity [not based on one scientist nor subject but only on the scientific FSK].

Physics objectivity is a subset of scientific [philosophical] objectivity [not based on one Physicist nor subject but only on the Physics FSK]. The Physics FSK comprised on the Classical, Einsteinian, Quantum Physics FSK.

The above principle of objectivity is applicable to all other fields of knowledge and their specific FSK.

The need for these FSK i.e. objectivity is to "fix the goalpost" [not absolutely] to promote consistency and whatever utility that can be derived from them.

As I had stated, there are degrees to the trustworthiness and credibility to the various FSKs with the scientific FSK as the most credible [along with the mathematic FSK].

You WANT to argue that morals are 'real' independent of humanity in some form as your OP's summation statement, "So moral facts can be objective provided it is supported by a credible FSK with the scientific FSK as its backing."

Because "FSK" is not a popular acronym, your use of it is proprietary and not necessary unless we all agree to it's significance. It also makes it appear as 'authoritative' without qualification. Please tell me what it is again, who the source author of it is, and then what in it conditionally assures morality is non-subjective. [Note that I choose "non-subjective" here to avoid contentious differences about the meaning of "objectivity". It would be more productive for me if you could thus prove how morality is NOT 'subject' to unique social existence.]

The term 'framework of knowledge' is a very popular term.
I have come across it in various philosophical theories and use by philosophers.
Here is an example,

The knowledge framework is a device for exploring the areas of knowledge. It identifies the key characteristics of each area of knowledge by depicting each area as a complex system of five interacting components. This enables students to effectively compare and contrast different areas of knowledge and allows the possibility of a deeper exploration of the relationship between areas of knowledge and ways of knowing.
https://www.wcpss.net/Page/7359

I have added the term 'system' to make it more comprehensive bringing in elements of system theory, i.e. Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory#:

Another perspective to the above is Model-dependent realism;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Another perspective is;
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962 [1970]) “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” i.e. knowledge is grounded and conditioned upon a paradigm.

In all the above, they are all grounded upon the human system.

Can you show me any objective knowledge that is independent and without an accompanying Framework, System or Model?

[Impenitent]

Can you show me any objective knowledge that is independent and without an accompanying Framework, System or Model?

once "me" is involved it becomes "mine" which is never objective...

embrace the existential or keep pushing the objective boulder up the hill...

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

I have added the term 'system' to make it more comprehensive bringing in elements of system theory, i.e. Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory#:

Another perspective to the above is Model-dependent realism;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Another perspective is;
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962 [1970]) “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” i.e. knowledge is grounded and conditioned upon a paradigm.

In all the above, they are all grounded upon the human system.

Can you show me any objective knowledge that is independent and without an accompanying Framework, System or Model?

Okay. You then appear to be focusing on the pedagogy [teaching and learning methodology] and more particular to Conceptual frameworks, correct?

If you express the contrast of approaches that you disagree with as well as putting forth the position you are for, it might help to understand what you mean and why you favor some particular approach. Express any motivating factors that leads you to where you are might also help.

Note that when I end up arguing politics I take certain preferential stances but focus on demonstrating "hypocrisy" of what others believe based upon their own views because I don't see any ideal solution to politics. So my preferred approach evaluates others based upon consistency to one's own collective set of values, and not some universal belief in some fixed values. This is my personal 'framework' as an example.

Since social issues are dependent upon one's conditions and evaluations by nature are non-existant [being atheist and logically nihilistic], I believe in focusing upon other's consistencies/inconsistencies to their own views with priority when debating moral differences or political ideals.

So in light of this, what is your own interpretation of what "objectivty" means and what is it not by contrast? How does it fit in with your own paradigm of what is needed in order to learn, teach, or understanding issues regarding morality with maximum effectiveness?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have added the term 'system' to make it more comprehensive bringing in elements of system theory, i.e. Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory#:

Another perspective to the above is Model-dependent realism;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Another perspective is;
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962 [1970]) “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” i.e. knowledge is grounded and conditioned upon a paradigm.

In all the above, they are all grounded upon the human system.

Can you show me any objective knowledge that is independent and without an accompanying Framework, System or Model?

Okay. You then appear to be focusing on the pedagogy [teaching and learning methodology] and more particular to Conceptual frameworks, correct?

If you express the contrast of approaches that you disagree with as well as putting forth the position you are for, it might help to understand what you mean and why you favor some particular approach. Express any motivating factors that leads you to where you are might also help.

Note that when I end up arguing politics I take certain preferential stances but focus on demonstrating "hypocrisy" of what others believe based upon their own views because I don't see any ideal solution to politics. So my preferred approach evaluates others based upon consistency to one's own collective set of values, and not some universal belief in some fixed values. This is my personal 'framework' as an example.

Since social issues are dependent upon one's conditions and evaluations by nature are non-existant [being atheist and logically nihilistic], I believe in focusing upon other's consistencies/inconsistencies to their own views with priority when debating moral differences or political ideals.

So in light of this, what is your own interpretation of what "objectivty" means and what is it not by contrast? How does it fit in with your own paradigm of what is needed in order to learn, teach, or understanding issues regarding morality with maximum effectiveness?

I have defined "objectivity" as that which is subjected to verifications and justifications within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

A personal framework generate opinions and at best self-verified beliefs thus it is very subjective.

To be objective the FSK must be sustained by a collective of people.
The degree of objectivity [thus trustworthiness, utility] will depend on the credibility of the FSK.

Surely you can sense the difference in objectivity, credibility, trustworthiness between claims from the scientific FSK to those of pseudoscience FSK, astrological FSK, theological FSK, personal FSKs, etc. FSK? They all cannot have the same degree of objectivity re their claims.

[Scott Mayers]

I have defined "objectivity" as that which is subjected to verifications and justifications within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

A personal framework generate opinions and at best self-verified beliefs thus it is very subjective.

To be objective the FSK must be sustained by a collective of people.
The degree of objectivity [thus trustworthiness, utility] will depend on the credibility of the FSK.

Surely you can sense the difference in objectivity, credibility, trustworthiness between claims from the scientific FSK to those of pseudoscience FSK, astrological FSK, theological FSK, personal FSKs, etc. FSK? They all cannot have the same degree of objectivity re their claims.

I agree, I think. I just know that there is a confusion of the term as it applies literally versus in context. When trying to appeal to those apparently against science or with unusual differences in beliefs, we cannot argue that science is better over their own subjective thinking based upon 'objectivity' without expanding upon the different meanings. To the non-scientific thinking, the resistance against 'objectivity' tend to interpret the meaning in its philosophical literal sense and why they would argue against science as being hypocritical to speaking of being ABLE to have the type of perspective of a 'god'. To clearly express this difference when arguing against these people's views is to point out how science uses the pragmatic meaning, NOT the philosophical strict meaning that requires an ideal God's-eye-view.

I have read and argued against the religious apologists who interpret science's objectivity as strictly philosophical and they have an apparent justification for this when many science promoters use the term undefined. The promoter or arguer needs to express the distinction and then argue WHY the process of science's meaning is nevertheless needed as the next-to-ideal given we cannot actually BE a god to meet the philosophical perspective as an 'object' apart from our biased default of being 'subject'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have defined "objectivity" as that which is subjected to verifications and justifications within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

A personal framework generate opinions and at best self-verified beliefs thus it is very subjective.

To be objective the FSK must be sustained by a collective of people.
The degree of objectivity [thus trustworthiness, utility] will depend on the credibility of the FSK.

Surely you can sense the difference in objectivity, credibility, trustworthiness between claims from the scientific FSK to those of pseudoscience FSK, astrological FSK, theological FSK, personal FSKs, etc. FSK? They all cannot have the same degree of objectivity re their claims.

I agree, I think. I just know that there is a confusion of the term as it applies literally versus in context. When trying to appeal to those apparently against science or with unusual differences in beliefs, we cannot argue that science is better over their own subjective thinking based upon 'objectivity' without expanding upon the different meanings. To the non-scientific thinking, the resistance against 'objectivity' tend to interpret the meaning in its philosophical literal sense and why they would argue against science as being hypocritical to speaking of being ABLE to have the type of perspective of a 'god'. To clearly express this difference when arguing against these people's views is to point out how science uses the pragmatic meaning, NOT the philosophical strict meaning that requires an ideal God's-eye-view.

I have read and argued against the religious apologists who interpret science's objectivity as strictly philosophical and they have an apparent justification for this when many science promoters use the term undefined. The promoter or arguer needs to express the distinction and then argue WHY the process of science's meaning is nevertheless needed as the next-to-ideal given we cannot actually BE a god to meet the philosophical perspective as an 'object' apart from our biased default of being 'subject'.

Actually the ideal God's-eye-view of objective is not strictly philosophical but merely a wrong view based on an ideology [philosophical realism] that is unrealistic.

What is the proper definition of philosophical objectivity [..listed previously] is, [note 'a'],

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

As such the above definition applies to any field of knowledge or context.

Re the pragmatic elements of Science, they generate the higher degree of objectivity in contrast to other fields of knowledge.

[Scott Mayers]

I have defined "objectivity" as that which is subjected to verifications and justifications within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

A personal framework generate opinions and at best self-verified beliefs thus it is very subjective.

To be objective the FSK must be sustained by a collective of people.
The degree of objectivity [thus trustworthiness, utility] will depend on the credibility of the FSK.

Surely you can sense the difference in objectivity, credibility, trustworthiness between claims from the scientific FSK to those of pseudoscience FSK, astrological FSK, theological FSK, personal FSKs, etc. FSK? They all cannot have the same degree of objectivity re their claims.

I agree, I think. I just know that there is a confusion of the term as it applies literally versus in context. When trying to appeal to those apparently against science or with unusual differences in beliefs, we cannot argue that science is better over their own subjective thinking based upon 'objectivity' without expanding upon the different meanings. To the non-scientific thinking, the resistance against 'objectivity' tend to interpret the meaning in its philosophical literal sense and why they would argue against science as being hypocritical to speaking of being ABLE to have the type of perspective of a 'god'. To clearly express this difference when arguing against these people's views is to point out how science uses the pragmatic meaning, NOT the philosophical strict meaning that requires an ideal God's-eye-view.

I have read and argued against the religious apologists who interpret science's objectivity as strictly philosophical and they have an apparent justification for this when many science promoters use the term undefined. The promoter or arguer needs to express the distinction and then argue WHY the process of science's meaning is nevertheless needed as the next-to-ideal given we cannot actually BE a god to meet the philosophical perspective as an 'object' apart from our biased default of being 'subject'.

Actually the ideal God's-eye-view of objective is not strictly philosophical but merely a wrong view based on an ideology [philosophical realism] that is unrealistic.

What is the proper definition of philosophical objectivity [..listed previously] is, [note 'a'],

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

As such the above definition applies to any field of knowledge or context.

Re the pragmatic elements of Science, they generate the higher degree of objectivity in contrast to other fields of knowledge.

"Object" is the root of "objectivity" as it relates to philosophy and you should know from your study in Kant that the 'object' is actually an intepretation of our senses that we 'extend' in our minds as existing out there (transcending our images of reality as representing objects out there without BEING the object). As such, you should recognize that the debate through philosophy regarding object's existences (ontology) questioned whether actual objects exist to which we define as 'objective'. The distinction of "objectivity" as science uses it refers to the LEAST POSSIBLE set factors necessary for all people IN PRINCIPLE to agree to if the procedures are laid out and followed fairly. The assumption is that if the SUBJECTS were to observe the results as defined, we should have some minimal set of things that we all agree to of our own PERSPECTIVE in kind. This is what is 'objective', ....the shared perspective based upon forumulating how anyone can repeat the proposed observations, experiments, and logic to reach the same conclusion.

The concern by outsiders with their own biased conclusions about reality interprets "objectivity" philosophically more generally to science's particular intent to MAXIMIZE agreement by seeking to find MINIMIZED factors that we can all agree to in principle. The latter meaning is 'objective' ideally by philosophical standards of the term where it is the OBJECTIVE (ie 'goal') to maximize agreement. So when arguing this as though the listener is lacking 'objectivity' if they are not being scientific, especially when debating against religion, makes those interpreting 'objectivity' as literally implying the concept of a God's eye view (or Nature) seem impossible and why they would stop listening to someone arguing how science is 'objective' in the philosophical sense.

Since, "truth independent from individual subjectivity" implies the view from no perceiver, no 'observer' as a human SUBJECT. Since scientists are just collections of SUBJECTS, the question philosophically is whether anything CAN be 'true independent of individuals' ....independent of human observers. This seems to go against the idea that science requires 'observers'. So to those against something scientific are not necessarily against the processes that might be used as "scientifically objective" but to the confusion of IMPOSING the scientific meaning to the philosophical. That is, if you hold to aligning science to BE identical in meaning to the philosophical meaning of 'objectivity', you lose the ability to use that term distinctly in other philosophical ways. Science 'objectivity' is about the uniformity of procedure as a common 'objective'; Philosophical 'objectivity' is more broadly inclusive and thus makes one like Kant to be able to argue whether we can KNOW if an object exists beyond our subjective perspective or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually the ideal God's-eye-view of objective is not strictly philosophical but merely a wrong view based on an ideology [philosophical realism] that is unrealistic.

What is the proper definition of philosophical objectivity [..listed previously] is, [note 'a'],

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

As such the above definition applies to any field of knowledge or context.

Re the pragmatic elements of Science, they generate the higher degree of objectivity in contrast to other fields of knowledge.

"Object" is the root of "objectivity" as it relates to philosophy and you should know from your study in Kant that the 'object' is actually an intepretation of our senses that we 'extend' in our minds as existing out there (transcending our images of reality as representing objects out there without BEING the object). As such, you should recognize that the debate through philosophy regarding object's existences (ontology) questioned whether actual objects exist to which we define as 'objective'. The distinction of "objectivity" as science uses it refers to the LEAST POSSIBLE set factors necessary for all people IN PRINCIPLE to agree to if the procedures are laid out and followed fairly. The assumption is that if the SUBJECTS were to observe the results as defined, we should have some minimal set of things that we all agree to of our own PERSPECTIVE in kind. This is what is 'objective', ....the shared perspective based upon forumulating how anyone can repeat the proposed observations, experiments, and logic to reach the same conclusion.

The concern by outsiders with their own biased conclusions about reality interprets "objectivity" philosophically more generally to science's particular intent to MAXIMIZE agreement by seeking to find MINIMIZED factors that we can all agree to in principle. The latter meaning is 'objective' ideally by philosophical standards of the term where it is the OBJECTIVE (ie 'goal') to maximize agreement. So when arguing this as though the listener is lacking 'objectivity' if they are not being scientific, especially when debating against religion, makes those interpreting 'objectivity' as literally implying the concept of a God's eye view (or Nature) seem impossible and why they would stop listening to someone arguing how science is 'objective' in the philosophical sense.

Since, "truth independent from individual subjectivity" implies the view from no perceiver, no 'observer' as a human SUBJECT. Since scientists are just collections of SUBJECTS, the question philosophically is whether anything CAN be 'true independent of individuals' ....independent of human observers. This seems to go against the idea that science requires 'observers'. So to those against something scientific are not necessarily against the processes that might be used as "scientifically objective" but to the confusion of IMPOSING the scientific meaning to the philosophical. That is, if you hold to aligning science to BE identical in meaning to the philosophical meaning of 'objectivity', you lose the ability to use that term distinctly in other philosophical ways. Science 'objectivity' is about the uniformity of procedure as a common 'objective'; Philosophical 'objectivity' is more broadly inclusive and thus makes one like Kant to be able to argue whether we can KNOW if an object exists beyond our subjective perspective or not.

Basically the context is subject versus object.

There are various meanings to 'objectivity' but fundamentally refer to a sense of independence from a sentient being, one subject or an individual.
This fundamental sense of independence from one subject is the same in Kant or wherever 'objectivity' is used.

The 'philosophical objectivity' is applicable to scientific objectivity since science is a sub-set of philosophy.

Thus when we refer to scientific objectivity, it mean the scientific truth is independent of one subject's [scientist] claims or belief but rather it is conditioned to the relevant scientific FSK.
There is no objectivity without a reference to a FSK [sustained by a community of subjects].
This community based objectivity has degrees depending on its degrees of credibility where the scientific FSK is the most credible [at present] thus the standard.

Why we need objectivity is to establish some sort of 'fixed goals' [not absolute] where the knowledge from the FSK can be translated to utilities for mankind.