The Myth of Objective Communication

We keep using terms like "fact" and "evidence," but those are not neutral containers—they're value judgments wrapped in the aesthetic of certainty, so let me ask: what exactly do we mean by a fact? The common definition is "something that can be verified as true regardless of belief," which assumes verification itself isn't already loaded with methodological assumptions and cultural priorities.

Two important caveats to this framing:

• The "objective communication" goal is already a philosophical stance, so critics are arguing against their own position. That's fine — it makes the argument honest rather than pretended.
• There is a functional difference between semantic objectivity and social neutrality. A scientific paper can be objectively precise about what it measures without being neutral about its implications.

The real question isn't whether objective communication exists, but how much of our language serves information vs. signaling — and if we can design systems that reduce the latter.