Phantom Objectivity: Intersubjective Knowledge in Complex Domains of Informal Structure

This paper advances three interconnected logical claims: First, that epistemological neutrality is fundamentally unattainable due to inherent cognitive, social and historical contingencies; second, that intersubjective frameworks offer a viable alternative to both naïve objectivism and radical relativism; and third, that Complex Domains of Informal Structure provide a particular case in which these epistemic limitations are manifested and can be productively managed through Knowledge Management of Strategic options through Soft Systemic Analysis frameworks. The impossibility of absolute neutrality is demonstrated through theoretical arguments exploring how even foundational scientific theories contain underdetermined elements requiring subjective interpretation; historical arguments showing how paradigmatic shifts reframe supposedly objective truths; and practical arguments revealing how AI solutions trained on ostensibly "neutral" data reproduce social biases. The paper systematically develops its argument through the analysis of fundamental epistemological concepts, drawing on both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions to establish the limitations of traditional epistemology. It then examines how these limitations manifest particularly in Complex Domains of Informal Structure, where tacit knowledge, specialist interpretation, and contextual understanding shape decision-making. Through examination of concrete applications in healthcare, urban planning, and algorithmic governance, the paper demonstrates how intersubjective approaches can acknowledge the unavoidable presence of subjectivity while establishing reliable epistemic frameworks for knowledge validation. This structured reflection ultimately advances a more sophisticated understanding of how knowledge is validated, disseminated, and applied across domains from scientific research to artificial intelligence development.