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