You realize that "lack of bias" comes from the thesaurus, not the definition of the word, right?
If you want to use an unusual definition of a word in order to make it apply to all errors (rather than only some), be my guest. There is no point disputing definitions. By your definition, you are correct, by the common definition, you are incorrect.
Quotation: "undistorted by emotion or personal bias".
> If you want to use an unusual definition of a word ...
I just proved that I am using the definition of the word. If you're not happy with what dictionaries have to say on this issue, then begin a campaign to change the meaning of "objective".
> There is no point disputing definitions.
So stop doing that. I'm not disputing the accepted definition, I'm simply posting it. Copy, paste.
All the definitions of objectivity describe a property of the experimenter, not the method.
A method can be biased too. Take, for example, the estimator S^2 = (1/n) sum (x[i]-mean(x))^2. This is a biased estimator of the standard deviation, but nevertheless it is objective. It is not influenced by the state of the experimenter at all.
Personal bias contradicts objectivity, but not all bias is personal bias.
Feel free to conflate all errors under one label - those of us who care about getting our measurements right don't have that luxury.
If you want to use an unusual definition of a word in order to make it apply to all errors (rather than only some), be my guest. There is no point disputing definitions. By your definition, you are correct, by the common definition, you are incorrect.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/