LOL… That is one of the funniest assertions I have heard in a long time.
But, my friend, it is not only objective evidence that is required… That is a good first step. The evidence should also be sufficient and appropriate to the claim. After all, I have an invisible dragon in my backyard. Each day I fill his water bowl up with water and each day, he drinks all the water. The bowl is empty by sundown. (Except in the winter when he does not drink as much.) These are the factual observations.
As you can see, interpretation of observations can vary. Intervening variables must also be considered. Objective evidence is not enough to support personal experience. It is a good first start.
Next, we like evidence to be quantifiable in some way. How much, how many, exactly when? This allows us to make specific predictions. In the above case of the dragon drinking water, we would observe the water level slowly decreasing throughout the day. That would be inconsistent with an animal taking a drink. It would lead us to suppose something else might be going on. Quantifiability would be needed in addition to objectivity.
Repeatability would be a third important factor. Repeatability through experimentation or observation. Can independent parties get the same results under the same conditions? This leads to Independent Verification.
Simply put, objective evidence is based on facts and is the kind of evidence that can be independently examined, evaluated, and verified.
Meeting the above criteria, we then have a process called ‘Peer Review.’ These aholes are going to look at your methodology, research design, hypothesis, and whether the study of your observation actually studies what it purports to study. They will look at your sample size, your assertions and your conclusions. And when your observation does not match your conclusion, they are going to call you out for the foolishness you have espoused. That’s the way it works.