Heinz von Förster once put it this way- I guess, it is mostly him who influenced my stance on the topic of objectivity (I watched all what is available about him and some books as well as texts and interviews with him):
"I consider the whole idea of objectivity to be a stumbling-block, a foot-trap, a semantic trick to confuse the speakers and the listeners and the whole discussion, right from the start. For objectivity, after all, as far as I understand Helmholtz's formulation, requires the locus observandi. There the observer must strip off all his personal characteristics and must see quite objectively - locus observandi! - see it as it is.
And this assumption already contains fearful errors. For when the ¨observer strips off all his characteristics, namely language - Greek, Latin, Turkic, whatever - when he puts away his cultural glasses and is thus blind and mute, then he cannot be an observer, and he cannot narrate anything at all. The preconditions of his narration are taken away. To ascend to the locus observandi means: put aside all your personal qualities, including seeing, including speaking, including culture, including nursery, and now report something to us. Well, what is he supposed to report? He can't do that."
What you say about "objectivity" actually is more telling about you as a person than about objectivity :) Same counts for me, of course.
While none of us can be perfectly objective, as von Forster notes, that does not preclude us from making observations that can usefully contribute. Bias is a terrible problem, stemming largely from hubris in science today, that does all too often produce irreproducible research. But it does not necessarily render us incapable of producing reproducible work. Not being 100% objective does not prevent us from contributing to understanding by creating falsifiable hypotheses.
Good science isn't necessarily right. Being provably wrong is really useful too, because it enables us to eliminate false hypotheses. We only need to be objective enough to be reproducible to be scientifically productive. Supposing that because we cannot be perfectly objective we cannot produce useful science is an impossible standard that demonstrably cannot apply to human endeavor. All we need to do is be reproducible, and that can be possible even if we are biased, as long as we are not so biased that we proceed to make assumptions that prevent testing our hypotheses.
A very significant point. What scientist or scientific assistant would openly admit to being biased?
This is why many say that today's science has acquired a sacrosanct status, according to which the concept of fact is used like sliced bread, and compare this with previous dogmatic views such as those of ecclesiastical sovereignties.
That being said, science alone, based on empirical data, is not the holy grail it is stylised to be. Analysis is not everything in life. Knowledge has limits and someone who does not want to humbly acknowledge this is not a good scientist in my eyes.
Apart from measurable fields, rays, frequencies, etc., etc., there are tangible experiences in the human context, such as those I described, which are based on singing, movement and music and about which you have said nothing so far. The arts (anything in the realm of spiritual consciousness) are, in my view, relegated to their own corner from school and university life and are not really considered (or their work published or funded) by natural scientists as influencers of health and disease (or more generally, "consciousness").
To put it bluntly and in terms of a stylistic exaggeration: art students go to an MRI and have themselves examined, they undergo surgical procedures, get on aeroplanes and use modern technologies. But do science students also go to a séance, have a phenomenological family constellation done, try the effects of LSD, hypnosis, are curious about metaphysics, philosophy?
All of them. Honest people should acknowledge they have bias. I follow Dark Horse on Odysee, the Weinstein's. I distinctly recall them noting that researchers need to ensure their research is reproducible, because that enables bias to be overcome. Different researchers have different biases in many respects, and these biases can be compensated for through undertaking the same specific actions to conduct experiments - or are universal and shared between all that conduct the experiment.
There are certain biases that are universal to humanity, and are therefore difficult to overcome experimentally, which limits the ability of the scientific method to advance in ways such biases preclude.
There are scientific means of measuring the health benefits of the arts. Both prayer and music (and probably more) have been shown to be beneficial to health through experiments that quantify health outcomes and contrast control groups with groups that use prayer or listen to music. However, this does not mean that artists' feelings about their art, nor religious dogmas, are verified. Experiments that differentiate and can falsify specific predictions have not been able to be designed for those purposes, AFAIK.
I doubt you would be able to conduct experiments that seek to falsify such dogma today in any academic environment. People get stabby over such things. Ask Salman Rushdie.