True knowledge is commonly thought to consist of "objective", precise statements of facts that correspond to the real world. But human knowledge can also consist of "subjective", unspecifiable skills, judgments, emotions, etc. that cannot be articulated, but they may nevertheless be true. Recent philosophers have concluded that neither of these notions of knowledge is rationally justifiable. Describing knowledge as either "objective" or "subjective" only begs the question.
Michael Polanyi described the simultaneous dual perspectives of objectivity and subjectivity of knowledge in this way: "When seen from within, knowledge appears as confidence in universally valid facts; when seen from without, it is reduced to subjectivity.... There is no difference, except in emphasis, between saying 'I believe p' and '"p" is true." (Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, 1958).
Polanyi's affirmation of the nature of all knowledge as personal does not mean that all knowledge reduces to merely subjective belief. However, it does take away the oppressive hubris of positivism that once tried to dominate all categories of knowledge, and it is now recognized that the positivistic insistence on objectivity was just another allegation.
The best we can do in finding objective, universal truth is to share in a community that believes in its existence and that is at the same time willing to be self-critical of all proposed theories and "new facts".
Return to dilogic diagram