Maybe it would help if you could point out the subjective aspect of some scientific finding? Your pronouncements in general seem far too vague to demonstrate any sort of causal relationship.

For example, how in detail does the goal of "understanding nature" subjectivize the early results of the HARPS radial velocity method for detecting exoplanets: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/10/aa17055-11/aa17055-11.html

Or if you don't like that, pick any other bona fide hard science result and let's walk through it and identify the key places where subjectivity arises from understanding.

Because what it looks like to me is that you've let someone's demon run amok in certain areas but not others, and then called out those areas as problems. But of course that's what happens when you let demons into them. It's fairer either to let the demon roam unconstrained, or to use the same banishing techniques in all places where they apply.