You're conflating ontological and epistemic subjectivity.
People/subjects give their anecdotes and then inductive reasoning is applied to give epistemically objective evidence. They are subjects with subjectivity but that doesn't make their knowledge subjective... there's no such thing as subjective knowledge. Evidence is relative and non-absolute inductive knowledge but it isn't subjective... it merely stems from people's subjectivity, their subjectivity which objectively exists ontologically and is irrelevant to the epistemic objectivity of the resulting evidence.
Without the inductive reasoning there is no evidence. The fact people are subjects and have subjectivity is irrelevant to the epistemic objectivity of the inductive logic used to create the evidence. The anecdotes themselves aren't evidence at all, they're just anecdotes. As I already explained it's the way the stories match each other and form a bigger picture, and induction is used to show that the likeliest explanation is that the anecdotes are true, that is the evidence. The anecdotes themselves are not evidence. The claims and stories themselves aren't evidence for the claims and stories themselves, that's ridiculous and circular.
People/subjects give their anecdotes and then inductive reasoning is applied to give epistemically objective evidence. They are subjects with subjectivity but that doesn't make their knowledge subjective... there's no such thing as subjective knowledge. Evidence is relative and non-absolute inductive knowledge but it isn't subjective... it merely stems from people's subjectivity, their subjectivity which objectively exists ontologically and is irrelevant to the epistemic objectivity of the resulting evidence.
Without the inductive reasoning there is no evidence. The fact people are subjects and have subjectivity is irrelevant to the epistemic objectivity of the inductive logic used to create the evidence. The anecdotes themselves aren't evidence at all, they're just anecdotes. As I already explained it's the way the stories match each other and form a bigger picture, and induction is used to show that the likeliest explanation is that the anecdotes are true, that is the evidence. The anecdotes themselves are not evidence. The claims and stories themselves aren't evidence for the claims and stories themselves, that's ridiculous and circular.
