>I think we must define our terms then

All of your "definitions" seem mundane and conventional, so I don't see any need to quibble with them. All of my definitions are implicit and otherwise correspond to the ineffable meaning the words have in any arbitrary context.

>It's also worth noting that I would not say I'm conflating "subjective" and "opinion" but rather that an opinion is a straightforward example of a subjective truth

This is an example of the conflation I was observing. I don't believe "truth" comes in objective or subjective varieties. Your note reiterates the "clever" approach you started with, and is subject to the criticisms I've already expressed about that technique. Being an honest opinion is not the same, either colloquially or philosophically, as it being true. Rhetorically, of course, people are used to making their conjectures unfalsifiable by resorting to the ambiguity of whether a "true opinion" is merely honest or "is likely to align with generalizable truths". That makes it a practice I would guard against rather than encourage.

> Other subjective truths could include experiences. [...] I share your urge to not use subjective pejorativly.

I believe such usage is intrinsic in your perspective. I mention using it dismissively as an example of the results (and the cause as well) of using it ambiguously, and from my perspective, you continue to use it ambiguously. To be honest, outside of philosophical discussions about the term itself, I make it a practice to simply never use the word at all. It cannot be divorced from its pejorative connotations in postmodern (contemporary) language.

>Not for nothing, how else do we approach identifing what is objective?

Well, when we avoid using "subjective" at all, we rarely need to identify what is objective, per se.

>Peer review is all about identifying what holds up across multiple perspectives.

I would dispute this notion, but we may have different processes in mind when using that term. "Peer review" is about identifying what cannot hold up under any reasonable perspective. It is a process that precedes publication of a scholarly paper. I believe you may be referring to public scrutiny, the process which follows publication, when other experts with different perspectives can consider and criticize the thesis.

>So I appreciate the discussion

I'm glad to hear it. I too, as well.