Expressionistic sketch on the most commonplace uses of the word objectivity as a stimulus for further comments
If you start from what we all, roughly, agree on in daily life, there is a kind of realm of facts (opinions about phenomena). Aristotle calls that, so far as I know he is the first to consciously raise the issue, endoxa or “common sense” (not to be confused with the term used in the context of his doctrine of sense data), the Catholics call this “the general opinion of mankind”. From this region, one can build up with the repeatable experiment idea, e.g., the Royal Society and Boyle. In this way, scientific results get the name “objective” (ergo, scientific “facts”).
On the other hand, when one considers the slight differences of perception from human to human, one comes soon to the idea of subjectivity in another sense. Then one comes to think of all humans in comparison to some other creature. At length, to the Kantian problem: the conditions of any being having experience.
Ergo, there is here, an extra problem of the way “objectivity” is being used. As over and against reliability for a community (because history, in contrast to “science”, deals in unique events that can not be repeated, but often of great significance, either legally or culturally) . And, then, as over and against different direct uptakes of the reliable thing.