Subjectivity (and objectivity) of thought

I came across this short post quoting Owen Flanagan from The Problem of the Soul. He mentions subjectivity of thought in regards to evaluating science against other "forms of discourse":

My view is that if you are going to claim that all forms of discourse are equally subjective, you better have real familiarity with all the forms of discourse you aim to level.

But science really isn't a subjective form of discourse. It's horrendously objective, which seems to be the biggest complaint against it, these days. Or maybe it's because it isn't. Hard to tell. Point is: one cannot have it both ways. If everything is subjective, then everything is equally dismissible out of hand. Opinions, then, would be the only things that matter. But if this is not the case, then anything said to be objective can be scrutinized. Subject to objective measurement and comparison, as it were.

If science is a subjective form of discourse, then disagreement about science and religion (for example) are simply differences of opinion, and we agree to disagree. No problem. But I see developments, particularly here in the US, that seek to bring religion into the classroom and teach it as if it were science. Objectively. Or maybe subjectively. Hard to tell. I'm pretty sure science is not subjective mumbo-jumbo, because it doesn't depend on whether I believe in it, or not. It's going to work (as long as you do it right) every time. (Let me posit that most aspects of religious practice do not "work" so predictably. But perhaps we're just not doing it right.)

Having religious beliefs is fine. They can help make you a better person, but of course religion is not the only path to being good, and it doesn't guarantee you'll actually be better (or even good). If they make you feel better, then they are a "good thing" on that basis. I have no disagreement with that. But religion is not the only way.

Speaking of belief systems, some argue that science is just as much faith and belief as religion. It's not, mostly because of the continual testing and verification. Evolution, for example, doesn't survive because the Darwin Priesthood says it must. It survives and grows because it makes predictions that are relentlessly tested, and the supporting evidence is so wide-spread--from many, many different disciplines--that it becomes virtually impossible to fit in another equally plausible hypothesis (that doesn't include the same features). It's no wonder scientists laugh when creationists try to get their ideas "equal time" in the scientific discourse.

By way of example: I sometimes laugh when I encounter people who don't understand how computers work. Many times they follow "rules" that make no sense, claiming that if they don't do them just so, then the computer won't work. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in what they're saying, but two unrelated things are still unrelated whether we think they are, or not. When I look at the code, I can tell what it does, and I'm certain it's doing only what I observe. It doesn't matter how much you think otherwise, it simply cannot be working for the reasons you think. This is the dichotomy I feel when folks try to take things and ascribe supernatural causes to them. While I may not be a scientist "looking at the code" of biology (for example) there are many who are, and do observe what's happening. If we can explain nature in unequivocal terms (such as the things a computer does) then no amount of imaginary fancy will change a thing. My computer will not suddenly start working if I yell at it. Or pray at it, either. Can you imagine the chaos if praying to the computer actually worked? (I want a $1,000,000 salary. Pay it to me!)

Many people argue that understanding the science behind certain "non-sciency" things sorta ruins them. I understand that falling in love is chemical, but it still feels good at the time. I understand what made the mountains and the weather, but I can still marvel at a magnificent vista. I'm just amazed by it all, no matter what the cause. Knowing why and wanting to know more ruins nothing. If you have to have mysterious supernatural explanations for things in order to feel good, then fine, go have them. Just don't try to tell me that your fantastic imaginings are on par with scientific findings.