I have to say I agree with PT's statement, and to be honest it contradicts the opinion that I'd held throughout the whole time reading through this thread. I was going to say that if they're focusing on a founded or established science then to some extent the quote is nonsensical and erroneous. However, if they were focusing on the formation and fruition of a new science, then to some extent it's true. In light of the points I'd read further however, science is all trial and error. A hypothesis is nothing more than a thought waiting to be tried. If something is scientifically based - even if it proves to be a faulty idea - and it may prove useful later, (which is highly likely) nothing can ever be subjective as everything will fit into some objective measure at some point in time. This is even if the objective measure is proving that the thought is erroneous.