the big problem with quoting the idea of objective vs subjective is that subjective existence, which is all we have.. has allowed for a thing called 'objectivity' to exist.
Objectivity is a mental mind method/way/filter of thinking and exists solely at the discretion of an entirety subjective existence.
that's how we end up, after a cascade of logic, to having science tell you quite clearly, that facts don't exist, never have and never will (high probability) and that we theory only, in all things, and..try as we might...that it is still turtles all the way down.
Understand that this is the PEAK of all renaissance thinking and origins of all science and physics, and there is no denying that - across the board in all forms of physics, in all ways and areas.
Go ahead, ask an expert, university department head in the sciences, if what I saw is true. If you go to them asking for facts and to have them deny what I've said here, they'll look at you like you've got three heads.
So I don't know where this crud about objectivity vs subjectivity comes from.
Probably from the non-scientific branch of the academic endeavor. Commonly known as the lower tier of science, called engineering. where people are taught that facts exist, and that science is full of 'laws'.
both of which are part of a rote learning package created for those who can't navigate the complexities of no facts existing in the real world of actual science..