"Science leads to mythological objectivity" comes to mind.
Culture and beliefs shape language and perception and thus influence the interpretation of the things that are logical only in the sense that they are unambiguously algorithmic, meaning any--even partial--change of the premise or it's order changes the conclusion.
But at the end of the algorithmic logic is the higher dimensional logic of purpose, and humans tend to disagree on why we big-banged ex nihilum and whether the code driving evolution has any return value or whether it's a recursive yield and any information previously yielded is neatly packed into all subsequent, proximate and peripheral yields--"the butterfly effect in 1/entropy*i or something" (someone scifi savvy probably has a cool term for that).
Some people say evolution just works and so it runs until it doesn't. I think objectivity in science is like an exploration of different paths at different angles.
It's a discussion, a conversation.
At the end, whoever understood additional angles, moves on a little more objective.
rolph•5mo ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546641/
Blinded experiment - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment