objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

Yes. Answer begets question, question begets the answer.

It takes one back to the idea of ’the longer the question has been around, the more fundamental the error in it’s formulation."

This part of why science refuses, categorically, the idea of facts, and that in exploration, in the idea of science, that all is theory....as theory can be altered to find the new data, to deal with the frailty and error and incompleteness of the humans in the equation.

Facts are for engineering so that makers don’t make bridges out of ideas or unproven thought experiments. Engineering is one step down from science. Engineering that is inclusive of exploration is not engineering, per se. It is akin to finding pathways in exploration to make things, to make real objects, things that exist outside the mind of the individual and can be shared.

Pundits can conflate the two, if they are not careful or have not truly delved into the methodologies of science and the reason for those methods.

which takes you back to that axiom of ’the longer the question exists, the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question.’ Thus, understanding complexities, stubbornly unresolved, that are attempting to unfold in the mind of the given observer, requires the growth of the observer, in order for the observer to cognate the given complexities therein.

That quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti: Truth cannot be brought down; rather, the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountaintop to the valley. If you would attain to the mountaintop, you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.

The large amount of time that this audio quandary has been in front of us.. states to all, if they find the mental capacity within (themselves) to realize it... is that the complexities are outside of (currently applied) modern science that is audio related (and utilized by the group that squabbles), until said sciences, or rather, the pundits that argue incessantly.... learn to encompass all components of the equation which are required in order to solve the quandary in front of the given seeker/observer.

The subjectivists, many of whom might try to utilize scientific methodology correctly..... urge caution and second looks. Science begins with observation, observation is king in science. Observation does not go away, in the face of science that says the observation is at fault, if the scientific methodology is the part that is truly at fault. which it can be in people who are frail and faulted, which all humans are. This is especially applicable in complex unresolved question and answer sets.

The objectivists can and many times do, call out the subjectivity, incorrectly, without any form of real scientific objectivity. as true and correct objectivity includes the observer in the complex equation.

where with humans... the observer as part of the equation... has to deal with human frailties like ego issues around the idea of expression, intake, and not knowing, internal filtering, mental constructional issues... and how that plays out in the mind and in human interactions with the world.

In other words, human frailty.. as tied to expressions in psychology.

To science, any observer or explorer in the world of audio, who claims that the subjectivists are at fault and are imagining things, are incomplete un-educated observers and have neither the authority nor the knowledge nor (quite possibly) the innate scientific capacity (quite possibly well outside their wheelhouse unless they grunt spectacularly hard--ie, grow) to lay fault in a large swath of audio subjectivist claims.

This, in clarity, to a mind that reads the above and cognates it, might lead one to conclude that things like ASR (the psychosis is right in the naming!) are deeply at fault and are miss takes on science and it's fundamental meaning. Where it is more akin to being a complete misapplication of the fundamental of science. a factualization of science --which is dogmatism - which is engineering. They've got both their pants and their head on - totally backward. Old engineers yelling at clouds.

The OP asked it..so..here we go...

In the science, physics, philosophy (philosophy is the father/parent of science), psychology, etc...meaning in the peak of all of this, in the true meaning of all of this...'objectivity' does not really exist.

the only thing that exists is a subjective reality experience. Objectivity, the concept of it, the idea of it, the expression of it, pours entirely out of a subjective experience. in the real world of fundamentals in all we know, at the heights of academia, definition of reality, research, all of it......there's not one single objective consideration that can be proven to be real, including any ideas on 'reality'.

The renaissance people of the past, the multi-skilled masters of the past, came up with the idea of objectivity to help themselves and others try and understand what this place is, and then be able to move the monkey aspects of the body around, but really -- that's about all she wrote.

This, codified and categorized, labelled, defined, etc..this is part of the core of the enlightenment in western society and what become the rigors of western science.

This was considered defined, to some extent, to prevent being lost in circularity (full knowing is not available), by Descartes in the over-simplified axiom (old school meme) of popularity, in the saying of "I think, therefore I am".

This is not the base of the question, or the base of all the considerations, nor is it he final backstop of research and investigation, which is the dangerous part (calling it complete while it isn't--rookie mistakes).

It (the Descartes axiom/meme) brick walls proper research into reality and stops it cold. Which is anti- science, and is generally used incorrectly by people (that fundamental rookie mistake). It is the dividing point between engineers and dilettantes. the central bulk of the IQ and awareness curve-- running around in the box, doing it's social thing.

True actual full on scientists, who are the people who really attempt to unfold this complex and totally unsolved reality question, they look at the whole equation which includes their own unreality..as they HAVE to, or their musing is meaningless and rudderless.

In other words, at the peak of all meaning and intent in science, it is still, beyond a shadow of a doubt.. turtles, all the way down.

Never forget this, and don't get caught up in the idea that your expression through this thing we call a slightly evolved monkey body - actually means anything..... outside of it being a subjective experience in a non-inclusive reality (incomplete, therefore incorrect and destined to FAIL, if attempting to answer truly difficult questions) -- in a meat monkey body.

Which is how one gets to situations (one of identical thousands if you look) where someone like Elon Musk, is totally correct, when he says there is very scant chance at all (ie, billions to one), that this impression of reality is an actual base reality. That this is a subjective experience, created on a skin or skein of some dimensional sort, and is information/differential or data based in some way or another.

Max Planck, the father of quantum science said basically the same thing (again, one instance in thousands, if you look), where he called it an 'information field'. Every thing we know, in the cutting edge of all sciences, says the same thing. You are a thought form in a meat box of undefined parameters, and nothing is real - by the very methods of all possible forms of measurement. Physics in all it's musing and works--totally agrees with this premise. No choice, it is evident in all things for all talented and determined explorers.

Descartes statement is misapplied (i think, therefore i am), and this allowed for the creation of engineering based science, but it is in no way a full representation of the real world. The bulk numbers who do not understand this Descartesian separation point in thinking... do not make their opinion in these matters 'real', if they disagree. It just makes them incomplete and incorrect.

If they get angry about this, avoid them, avoid bringing the question up, when around them, and connecting with them, if one values their monkey meat box of a vehicle of experiencing this reality.

THIS, all of the above, is why, in the physics department and all of it's subdivisions into science and training and academia.. that all of the professors, if pushed and asked, will tell you that there is no such thing as a fact, and all is theory.

We get all these angry 'fact mongers' on forums, everywhere, on all forums..who don't understand this ..... and attack, demanding  their own self security be reflected by me, into them... a thing that.. which ultimately...cannot and does not exist.

~~~~~~

So, very very importantly, here...we gotta keep this straight (it is the op itself)..it is quite critical to the subject at hand: objectivity is a thought experiment - nothing more.

Where, if we go forward, in proper understanding of these critical points (stop windmilling and falling through an undefined blackness, angry and seeking hand-grips for your monkey), you'll have less stress in your life.