It sure seems like it reading some of the threads here.
Objectivity is simple: the observer/investigator tries to make his/her self influence the outcome of the observing/investigation/inquiry as little as possible.
In Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction Stephen Gaukroger says, if I recall correctly, that objectivity is a matter of degree. Nothing is purely subjective. Nothing is purely objective. Objectivity is not "the view from nowhere", he says.
Yet, it seems that some people do honestly believe that they have accessed the view from nowhere.
Furthermore, it seems like some people believe that anything short of pure, absolute objectivity is dangerous. I think that that is irrational. Even if pure, absolute objectivity existed it would not mean that subjective = dangerous. If errors, mistakes, etc. a lot of the time are not dangerous, then why would subjectivity be inherently dangerous? I thought that the states of Arkansas and Kentucky have roughly the same population. My research showed that, on the contrary, the population of Arkansas is much smaller than the population of Kentucky. Nobody was harmed.
I believe that Gaukroger puts it this way: we practice objectivity to meet our needs. The degree of objectivity required depends on the circumstances. A good illustration that I have used before is this: the degree of objectivity required for a baseball umpire to call balls and strikes is less than the degree of objectivity required for, oh, a physician to examine a patient. If one umpire calls a pitch a ball while another umpire would call that pitch a strike, it is not a big deal. Hitters and pitchers adjust to each umpire's strike zone. The important thing is that an umpire is being consistent with what is a ball and what is a strike and that the game, therefore, is being called fairly. But we expect--and we need--greater objectivity from medical doctors. If one doctor says you have indigestion and another doctor says you are having a heart attack, something is wrong. The degree of objectivity required depends on the circumstances.
But some people not only seem to make pure, absolute objectivity a universal standard and epistemological utopia, they seem to say that they have actually accessed unmediated objective reality. Apparently that is why they say that A is indisputable and if you do not accept A then you are not a rational person.
Let's assume that we can directly access objective reality. So what? That does not mean that what we learn is useful. Time and energy spent accessing some truth that is trivial or has no immediate application where there is great need could have been spent on addressing need in some effective way.
Maybe I am alone, but I think that we should be focused on our needs, not on trying to realize some mythological epistemological purity at all costs.
