Morality: Intersubjectivity and Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand there is a difference between the concept of Objectivity and Intersubjectivity.

However, both can be related, i.e. Objectivity is Intersubjectivity in the scientific contexts where intersubjective agreement amongst scientists are critical in determining whether a hypothesis is recognized as a scientific truth.

Here is the relevant supporting point from SEP;

• 4. Objectivity as Freedom from Personal Biases
  This section deals with scientific objectivity as a form of intersubjectivity—as freedom from personal biases.
  
  According to this view, science is objective to the extent that personal biases are absent from scientific reasoning, or that they can be eliminated in a social process.
  
  Perhaps all science is necessarily perspectival.
  Perhaps we cannot sensibly draw scientific inferences without a host of background assumptions, which may include assumptions about values.
  Perhaps all scientists are biased in some way.
  
  But objective scientific results do not, or so the argument goes, depend on researchers’ personal preferences or experiences—they are the result of a process where individual biases are gradually filtered out and replaced by agreed upon evidence.
  That, among other things, is what distinguishes science from the arts and other human activities, and scientific knowledge from a fact-independent social construction (e.g., Haack 2003).
  
  Paradigmatic ways to achieve objectivity in this sense are measurement and quantification.
  What has been measured and quantified has been verified relative to a standard.
  The truth, say, that the Eiffel Tower is 324 meters tall is relative to a standard unit and conventions about how to use certain instruments, so it is neither aperspectival nor free from assumptions, but it is independent of the person making the measurement.
  
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... eePersBias

As such, from the above perspective 'objectivity is intersubjective' grounded on intersubjective agreement.

I note there are fringe views from the above, but the central tenet is 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' from the scientific perspective.

My point;
What is objective [intersubjectivity] is grounded upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable.
My proposed moral FSK has high credibility, reliability and objectivity [intersubjectivity] because all its critical inputs are from the scientific FSK.
Therefore human-based morality is Objective.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
OBJECTIVITY AS "INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENT
Eugene Freeman
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27902304

[FlashDangerpants]

However, both can be related, i.e. Objectivity is Intersubjectivity in the scientific contexts where intersubjective agreement amongst scientists are critical in determining whether a hypothesis is recognized as a scientific truth.

And you don't think that maybe experimental methods has something to do with what makes science objective ... something that pseudo sciences lack perhaps?


He's on the brink of reaching critical awareness about what's missing from his morality-proper FSK, somebody help this fuckwit out please.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For those who are ignorant, doubtful and suspicious;

What is scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the human based scientific Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge FSR-FSK which comprised of the following;

1. The scientific Method

2. Assumptions and limitations

3. Testing for repetition by Peers and others.

4. Peer Review for Intersubjective Agreement.

The bulk of the scientific processes and activities are within the Scientific Method, which comprise the Experimental Methods, the measurements, values, etc.

However what is critical is the peer review to obtain intersubjective agreement and intersubjective consensus to consummate the hypothesis as a scientific fact or truth.

[Flannel Jesus]

Truth about what? Facts about what?

If enough scientists agree about something, that makes it an objective fact? What if later scientists disagree with previous scientists? Were the previous scientists objectively correct, and are now incorrect?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a point from ChatGPT [with reservations] which I agree with;

.. we can state that Andrea Meza from Mexico was crowned Miss Universe 2020 within the framework and system of the Miss Universe competition as an objective fact.
The crowning of Andrea Meza as Miss Universe 2020 is a verifiable event that took place during the competition, and it can be confirmed through official records, news sources, and the Miss Universe organization.

Objectivity in this context refers to the fact that the event occurred within the established rules and procedures of the Miss Universe competition, and it can be independently verified based on evidence and documentation. The objective fact is that Andrea Meza won the title of Miss Universe 2020 as a result of her performance, evaluations by the judges, and adherence to the criteria set forth by the Miss Universe organization.

However, it's important to note that while the event itself is objective, the evaluation and judgment of the contestants in beauty pageants like Miss Universe can still involve subjective elements and individual opinions, even within the established framework and system. The objectivity lies in the factual occurrence of the event and the adherence to the competition's rules and procedures.

The point of the above is, even beauty as one of the most subjective element can be objectified via intersubjective agreements within a human-based FSK.
Of course, we must consider the degree of objective in this case relative the scientific FSK as the standard.

Surprise?
or do you refute the above?