The latter also seems to have understood objectivity in terms of invariance.
Rather, what you should pay attention to, after you get past all the ad-hominem attacks flying on both sides of this "debate," is the fact that Siegler's and Arrington's responses don't actually address the (admittedly, much-obscured) core of Lyons's attacks on their work: Namely, that they don't understand why objectivity would be a desirable thing.
One might, for example, understand moral objectivity using the template provided by Michael Dummett (1978 and 1993): Atomic moral sentences are such that, though we think of them as determinately true or false, we nevertheless know of no method that represents either a proof or a disproof of such sentences; they are potentially "recognition transcendent".
How are we to understand claims to objectivity in moral judgments and in judgments of rationality?
This criterion characterizes physical reality in terms of "objectivity" understood as independence from any direct measurement.
By extension, feminist critiques of and contributions to the sciences suggest the need to reassess making a sharp distinction between "contextual" values (non-epistemic, socio-political interests and considerations) and cognitive factors (good reasons, evidence)—the ideals (truth, objectivity) understood to be "constitutive" of the sciences.
While she said she understands why the appearance of objectivity is important, "every legal system has to revolve and reflect current social values… or it can't be just and fair".
For one thing, there are two fundamentally different ways to understand the term: product objectivity and process objectivity.
So many debates in philosophy revolve around the issue of objectivity versus non-objectivity that one may be forgiven for assuming that someone somewhere understands this distinction.
When thinking about the role of metrics today, it is still common to turn to notions of trust, faith and objectivity to understand how numbers shape our lives.
