This discussion on "objective" seems to be falling into solipsism (Eg: the
recent challenge from Frank Dwyer, for someone to prove that he can actually
observe phenomena).  Someones even made the statement that science is
"subjective" and that even atom are "subjective." This is getting a bit silly
and the word "objective" is losing all meaning.  Lets start by remembering the
definition of "objective" which has been already presented:

  objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as 
    distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existence.
    3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
    observable phenomenon.

The Objectivity of a thing is not based on whether everyone agrees on that
thing (eg: the world is objectively round, regardless of the fact that there
exist flat earthers), but rather whether it is based observable and verifiable
phenomenon (instead of being based solely on peoples wishes, feeling, mental
processes, etc).  Thus atoms, being based on very observable and repeatable
phenomenon, are indeed considered to be objective rather than subjective. 
Even weird, high energy physics is based on observable phenomenon (even though
that observation can change the outcome).  Nor are those observable phenomenon
affected by emotion, or personal prejudice (eg: chemical reactions do not
change to the whims of different people).  Thus to say that science is not
objective (ie: objectively verifiable) is a bit silly, as that is the
point of science.  Now I will agree that science is not objectively "good;" I
will not thereby conclude though that science is not objective. 

Now some examples things which are "objective":  A D-12 tractor is larger
than the average breadbox.  Chlorophyll is green.  Seawater contains salt.
There exists ozone in the atmosphere (at least presently).  Ozone blocks 
ultraviolet light.  Ultraviolet light increases the incidents of skin Cancer.

"Good" on the other hand is a value judgement.  It doesn't seem to have an
existence apart from what we give it (unless someone can objectively show the
existence of an omnipotent entity which has defined "good").  We cannot
quantify it, touch it or collect it in any concrete sense (eg: I have a bag
full of "good").  Now we do sometimes attempt to give the word "good" an
objective meaning, e.g.  "good" has been used to denote strength, resiliency,
speed, etc.  That though, is a subjective definition, as some might not see
"strength" and etc, as necessarily "good" (eg: strength inspired by Naziism 
is not generally viewed as "good"). 

As to a morality, I cannot say that I have ever seen a morality strictly based
on verifiable observable phenomenon.  The closest I have seen is some form of
the "Golden Rule," which concludes that it is best not to deliberately piss
people off, as they will likely then involve themselves in your life, in a
manner you won't like.  This is verifiable; when you "get in someone's face,"
they will often retaliate.  Another objective fact about morality is that a
more powerful group can enforce their morality on a weaker group, and thus can
at times, ignore that form of the "Golden Rule" without fear of reprisal.  Now
as to whether this enforcing of morality is "good" or "bad," is quite
subjective.  By the way, remember that subjective does not mean that a thing
cannot be formally stated, or even commonly agreed upon; it only means that
that it is not verifiable from observable phenomena, or has a physical
existence unto itself.  Also note that I have not stated that there is no such
thing as an objective morality, or that I could not accept any such a
morality; I have simply stated that I have seen no evidence of any such
morality. 

One other thing to notice, "objective" is many times used as synonymous with
"true" and/or "absolute," and "subjective" sometimes has the connotation of
"false" and/or "relative." Tain't necessarily so.  For instance, when a
conclusion is based on objective, but insufficient evidence, then it can be
both objective and false.  As to "absolute," it is easy to note that while we
can objectively show that TNT is explosive, but that does not absolutely mean
that all TNT will explode, and thus objective is not necessarily absolute
either.  On the other hand, something subjective can also be either
"absolutist," or "true." For instance, there are some theists who are
specifically "absolutist" in their morality, even though they have only
subjective evidence to back it up.  Further, many a scientist and detective
has been motivated by subjective reasons (eg: a "gut feeling" or "hunch"), to
investigate a phenomena or situation, and gather the objective evidence
necessary to support a true hypothesis.  On the whole though, I would have to
agree that objective evidence is much more trustworthy than subjective
evidence.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler