Do you propose man leans on objective methods, or objective truths?
Perhaps I was vague. What I mean is that many tend to associate themselves emotionally
with the authority of the objective. In a practical sense, objectivity is to be prized. But I think that "Objective" can function as a lucky rabbit's foot. The correspondence theory of truth has its weaknesses. There are some too emotionally attached to it to see these. But that is "my" truth. It's a truth for whoever can use it.
Homosexuality was classed as a mental disease until social mores changed. How objective was psychology, then, in the first place? And yet the men in lab quotes spoke with the authority of our modern God, science. Real science (what I
consider ideal science) is beyond this, but men are fallible, and power corrupts.
I offer opinions. The objective man (a straw-man, a cartoon villain for illustrative convenience) has the arrogance of a priest. We look to expert, gape-mouthed. Not all of us but many.
Heretics are burned for offering contrary dogma. Objectivity is catholic, universal. This is fine when it's the real thing, and terrible when it silences dissent. Chinese Communists (if the US media is to be trusted) have oppressed religious minorities for their "irrationality."