Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

But objective facts are right, a subjective opinion is neither right or wrong.

Q1: Is language objective or subjective?

It’s an objective way of effectively communicating yes, the mutual understanding of both parties using it is objective proof of this.

Scientists are objective.

Why is it important for a scientist to be objective?

Scientists will alter hypotheses and theories when new knowledge is developed. Objectivity is important in science because scientific studies seek to get as close to the truth as possible, not just prove a hypothesis. Experiments should be designed to be objective and not to get the answers that a scientists wants

There are some 8.8 million scientists in the world. That’s a lot of qualified objective humans.

Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.

(2) Proposed definition: "science"

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]

(3) Proposed definition: "objective"

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]

(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

(4) Key support for resolution

Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."

(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).

(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).

The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).

(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".

(5) Reinforcements

As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.

"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]

Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".

"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.

In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.

"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]

"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]

The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.

(6) Common counter arguments

I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,

"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]

"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]

The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.

One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.

But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.

They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.

(7) Round 1 closing statement

Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_science

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+objective&spf=394&cad=h

[5] https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

[7] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

[8] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+subjective&spf=399&cad=h

[9] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[10] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[11] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/14/

the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.

--> @Shila

which brings us once again back to HUME'S GUILLOTINE

facts alone cannot convey meaning

facts must be colored with context

and context is by definition, subjective (sample biased)

There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.

There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.

There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.

All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.

Once again, objectivity requires independence from thinking minds. This is a logically incoherent concept.

Right” does not always mean “factually correct”. It has other applications.

An employer terminates an employee after determining the employee’s conduct was counterproductive to the company’s goals. If the determination is accurate, they made “the right move”. There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.

A dancer in the middle of a choreographed performance performs “the wrong move”. It’s wrong because it is not what was planned with the group. There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.

A singer sings the wrong note to a song. There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.

There is no need for any of this to be objective for us to recognize a right or a wrong. All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.

Facts are objective  when it is free from personal considerations,

and if one were to violate said rules then they are by definition wrong, there employee handbook

you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniform

neither of these is a given                                                    

you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniform

neither of these is a given                                                                           

Which is the proper assumption based on Double_R’s use of the term “right”, and the sole purpose of rules is to be enforced, that’s a given.

“the point is

that the employer and or their proxy

SUBJECTIVELY

decides

"what is best for the company"

No, the point is that violating agreed upon rules of the workplace is a fireable offense plain and simple, how those rules were determined remains separate to the firing itself.

only if "the rules" are coherent

and enforcement is uniform

Now apply this to morality

only if "the rules" are coherent

and enforcement is uniform

If your only play here is to go in circles that’s how you know you lost, have a nice day 3.

if you can't see how "the rules" are subjective

and if you can't see how "enforcement" is also subjective

you must live in a perfect world where everyone is treated fairly

where everyone gets exactly what they "objectively" deserve

I don’t know how you can come to that reach of a conclusion based off of one work example.

Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds

Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break

Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds

Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break

Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests

it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests

Okay, but I never argued that they were.

Now apply this to morality

In regards to morality you don’t have to “share” anything the results are what they are period.

you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"

The word “share” was not written anywhere in my post, so why are you responding to it and why are you putting it in quotations?

And what does “the results are what they are” have to do with anything I just said?

but morality requires the individual to choose the starting point making it necessarily subjective.

you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"

Parole is not a regulation dude, stop reaching.

Because it doesn’t matter if two individuals agree on a “moral” standard, if it doesn’t align with God’s then they both will have to deal with the objective result of going to hell, making that standard meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?

i will never go to imaginary hell no matter what i do

because i trust in imaginary jesus