I often use the phrase “intersubjective verification of the interobjective” to describe a key method of knowledge making and sense-making. Some people politely call it “mighty dense,” while others more bluntly ask, “What the hell does that mean?”
So after putting it off for awhile, I’ve attempted to unpack and explain the concept. A Google search suggests I’m the first to use the phrase, so I get to define it!
Intersubjective Verification Of The Interobjective
In our quest to understand the world, we often rely on shared observations and mutual agreements to form a reliable body of knowledge. This collaborative process can be captured by the phrase “intersubjective verification of the interobjective.” By breaking it down, we see that two vital ideas underpin this concept: intersubjectivity, which deals with how individuals reach a shared understanding through communication and agreement, and interobjectivity, which addresses the independently existing, observable aspects of reality. When woven together, these elements depict how human beings collectively construct and refine their grasp of the external world.
Intersubjectivity refers to the shared realm of meaning that arises through interpersonal interactions. When we converse, negotiate, or debate, we seek a degree of consensus that transcends individual perspectives. This mutual understanding is not merely about agreeing on definitions or facts; it involves the ability to communicate concepts accurately and reproduce results under varying circumstances. For instance, if two scientists conduct similar experiments in different locations, their ability to arrive at consistent conclusions underscores intersubjective agreement. In effect, communication and verification between observers help to ensure that personal biases or perceptual quirks are minimized.
On the other hand, interobjectivity signifies the tangible or measurable reality that exists independently of any single individual’s perspective. While our personal senses and interpretations color what we perceive, the phenomena themselves operate according to principles and patterns that are not reducible to one person’s view. The consistency of these principles — be it in the movement of celestial bodies or the predictable behavior of chemical reactions — forms the basis for communal understanding. Thus, while each person might interpret their observations differently, the underlying interobjective world remains the same.
The process of intersubjective verification of the interobjective unfolds in several stages. First, individuals make observations of the external world, gathering data through their senses or instruments. Next, they communicate these experiences with others through language, symbols, or other expressive means. This leads to comparison, where observations from different people are juxtaposed for congruencies or divergences. As discussions develop, participants aim for a consensus that captures both the common ground and the nuances uncovered during the comparison stage. Finally, the resulting shared understanding undergoes verification through further observation and experimentation, enabling continuous refinement of the knowledge in question. This cyclical process — observation, communication, comparison, consensus, and verification — serves as the backbone of scientific inquiry, ensuring that conclusions are robust and not easily swayed by subjective error.
The strength of this collective approach lies in its capacity to overcome individual limitations. By integrating multiple perspectives, humans can guard against personal biases, perceptual constraints, and simple oversights. For instance, if one researcher overlooks a subtle factor in an experiment, another researcher might catch it and bring it to the group’s attention. Through repeated testing and open dialogue, the group self-corrects, arriving at increasingly accurate conclusions. In this way, intersubjective verification of the interobjective embodies a kind of checks-and-balances system that fortifies the pursuit of truth.
Importantly, this process does not pertain only to scientific efforts. In our everyday interactions — such as agreeing on social norms, verifying shared experiences, or even recounting stories — we engage in the same basic pattern. Whether we are clarifying a memory with a friend or negotiating cultural values within a community, we build a shared framework of understanding that enables smoother communication and cooperation. This underscores how intersubjective verification of the interobjective is at the heart of human knowledge creation: it structures not only how we validate empirical findings but also how we forge and sustain social and cultural realities.
Yet, there are realms in which intersubjective verification of the interobjective may not be sufficient or even applicable in arriving at conclusions. This is particularly evident when we examine the “is-ought” problem — philosopher David Hume’s observation that one cannot derive an “ought” (a value judgment or moral imperative) purely from an “is” (a statement of fact). Though scientific data and collective observation can reveal how things currently are, they cannot on their own establish how things ought to be. Moral, ethical, and existential questions about what constitutes the greater good or the proper course of action often hinge on subjective values, cultural norms, or individual beliefs. While intersubjective agreement might create a shared ethical framework, it does not objectively prove that one moral principle is universally correct — these issues transcend what can be resolved through observation alone.
Similarly, our assessments of art, beauty, and what makes a life well lived involve deeply personal and cultural factors that cannot be validated solely by shared empirical data. Tastes in music, literature, or visual arts often reflect individual emotional responses, upbringing, and cultural context, making them less amenable to the same verification process used in scientific inquiry. Though discussions, critiques, and comparative studies in the arts can yield widely respected judgments, these still depend on collective but ultimately subjective sensibilities. In these inherently subjective realms, intersubjective verification can foster richer dialogue and deeper insight, yet it cannot reduce personal experience to a purely objective standard. Here, the processes of observation and consensus serve more to enhance mutual appreciation and understanding than to establish a definitive and universally binding truth.
Ultimately, intersubjective verification of the interobjective highlights the profoundly social nature of human knowing in scientific, cultural, and everyday contexts. By combining multiple subjective experiences within an objective framework, we reduce the risk of individual error and move closer to an accurate representation of reality where objectivity is possible. At the same time, we must recognize that certain domains — especially those rooted in moral, aesthetic, or existential considerations — cannot be wholly resolved by the same rigorous methods. Appreciating both the power and the limits of this approach provides a fuller perspective on the scope and nature of human knowledge.
Tagged with :