Can anyone explain what an "objective" statement or argument really is? How can we decide that one statement is more objective than another?
Objectivity can be considered as some sort of "pure information", in the sense that different people would have the same interpretation of it and would apply it in the same way. Information is rather different than communication, communication cannot be reduced to it. For a more extense debate on this subject, you may find this interesting: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/2144/which-languages-are-used-for-purposes-other-than-facilitating-communication
Subjectivity implies that there are some sorts os "holes" in speech (missing information), which will be completed by each person with their own values. Objectivity means that there's nothing missing, all elements needed for interpretation are provided. Maybe total objectivity is not possible, as we cannot erase ourselves completely in the linguistic process of elaborating knowledge.
If I say to 2 persons "Go to the garden and pick up a beautiful flower", unless you are a philosopher meaning to discuss with me the nature of what is beauty, you'll go to the garden and pick up whichever flower appeals to you as beautiful. The flower you picked may be very different from the flower the other person picked.
If I say to you "Go the the garden and pick up a red flower with 5 petals", this is much more objective; considering you know what "flower", "red", "petal" and "5" means in general, the flower you pick possibly will be very similar to the one the other person would pick. As you see.. objectivity implies specification, and the more objective I want to be, the more elements I need to provide, to make sure that you and I have the same references and values. Objectivity requires a common background, and making sure that mine is the same as yours, or at least, the closest to being the same; we must share a vocabulary and values for it to work.
Not only do I have to say what I think/want, I need to specify what it is that I mean with those terms. Usually we are unaware of how tricky this can be, even for simple things like "red" ("oh.. so this is red to you? I consider it to be orange"). The more we have a common ground of values, more likely it is that we will be able to share information.
I consider objectivity and subjectivity to be qualities in a relationship within a linguistic set. In this sense, there is no way a person can be objective in itself, whithout considering how it would be perceived by another.
Objectivity is normally assessed by the extent to which it is conceivable that the qualities described in the statement would exist in the manner they're described regardless of whether there are minds there to perceive them. One obvious question if this definition is accepted would be: if the criteria for determining the extent of a statement's objectivity (insofar as there can be said to be degrees, that is if it isn't taken to be an either/or destinction) is itself reliant upon reference to mind dependent phenomena (the conceivability referred to above), does this mean true objectivity is impossible?
An argument is a knowledge about specific causality. Causality can't go further outside boundaries. Causality is related to realities.
A piece of reality is an existence. And an existence is exist as far as we perceive.
We perceive something at different levels, therefore a piece of reality can be perceived by us differently to someone else. How we perceive something can be provided through our five senses (or even more for someone believe in spirituality - third eye for an example).
Through these senses we have awareness to an existence. The more we can use our senses to identify something, the more an existence that we perceived become closer to us (more real).
What an 'objective' statement or argument really is?
Therefore our statement is more objective if we can:
at least relate it to one of our senses relevantly,
- Asserting something that can be visualized to someone without involving someone's eyes would make an explanation is less objective. Including explaining something that must be heard to someone without involving someone's ear would make an explanation is less objective.
(perceive to the fully extent) relate it to more than one of our possible senses.
- We can do this by widening our awareness until we can direct our awareness to something, and we are aware of something to the fully extent, well connected to any of our senses. It's in the field of spiritual or metaphysics (meditation is known method for this purpose)
How can we decide that one statement is more objective than the other?
The more a knowledge can be accepted by as many as our possible senses, the more a knowledge can be considered more objective, the more it becomes closer to us (more real).
Objectivity, like the notions of "Perfection", or "Providence", is an example of religious thought intruding stealthily into the modern secular world.
"Objectivity" as a serious philosophical notion suggests a privileged vantage point, an "Absolute" against which reality is to be gauged and a definite, final answer is to be found.
Objectivity exists in the eye of God. And if you believe in God, that`s fine. But secular philosophy should really consign this notion to the bonfire of defunct religious dogma.
Physics has demonstrated the non-existence of a solid, unconditional "objective" reality, and in doing so has exposed the very notion of Objectivity as a fallacious presumption of dubious origins. Entities are "nothing much" in themselves, but manifest as phenomena from the act of perception, which itself finds its points of reference in the context of the "nexus of the all", (or the known universe, if you like). The fact that no electron is an island, so to speak, that it can only exist in the context of the rest of the universe further illustrates my point.