Prof,
Isn’t the point here that science strives to be objective, but cannot with certainty truly be so because it’s practised by subjective beings – ie, us?
But that doesn't mean that science, in its theoretical state, isn't objective - merely that scientist are sometime not able to meet that goal.
But the point about science and the scientific method is that it firstly recognises those issues and goes out of its way to mitigate against and eliminate any subjective interference in the objectivity of scientific data. So firstly, wherever possible the collection of data will be automated, removing human subjectivity. Secondly reproducibility - the key element of scientific that data are only valid where they are reproducible in another setting and 'another scientists hand' - this is effectively about eliminating the individual subjectivity. If many scientists, working independently are able to reproduce the data then we move toward true objectivity. Thirdly, and linked to the second, an understanding of variability in data - and in the most appropriately designed studies, the ability to undercover the source of that variability, be it inherent in the data (and therefore objective) or an artefact of the experiment, whether due to human variability or inherent in the method.
So although you may argue that the collection of scientific data is not truly objective in practice, it is in theory and the method itself is designed to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible to drive it as near as possible to true objectivity. As such I think it is perfectly valid to describe science as objective. Not to do so simply lumps it with other approaches that never aim at objectivity nor classify subjectivity as a flaw.
