A knockdown prophecy

[R00tKiT]

Let me put the problem to you so that even you might understand.  Let's say we have scientist A and scientist B who use different definitions of modern human.  According to A, specimen #1264 is the first modern human.  However, according to B, specimen #12,831 is the first modern human.  Neither is objectively right or wrong, they're both equally right and equally wrong.  However, since A and B claim different specimens as the first modern human, there is no fact of the matter as to which is the first modern human.  It's dependent upon which definition a person holds, and as such it depends upon a specific mental disposition and is by definition subjective.  Subjective facts are not objective facts and ne'er the twain shall meet.  But do keep trying.  It's good for the lulz.

I am not sure what you're driving at with this "objective/subjective" stuff, so let me clarify that once and for all : I am obviously trying to argue that there is objectively a first modern human that existed at some point in time. If the definition of a modern human is subjective, then it's not a definition worth considering.

I can give a very simple definition of what a first modern human (which I'll label FMH, for brevity) is : the oldest member of the first generation of modern humans. We know an oldest member exists per the well ordering property in math, this much is absolutely true. So we can rest assured that this definition doesn't depend on anybody's tastes.

Now let's consider your example. If A and B agree on one definition of a FMH, either A or B are wrong, necessarily, and obviously they can both be wrong, but they can never be both right. If they don't agree on a definition, then there can't be a comparison of the specimen to begin with.

So, to sum it up, nobody cares about subjective facts here, and if the best definition of a FMH that you can come up with is subjective, then it's not good enough.