Hm, a lot of semantics, which is subject to discussion already. The benefit of science is that it is intersubjective, or can be. I prefer to use that term, rather than ‘objective’. That’s why we write about it, and hold scientific meetings and conferences, so we can establish what we intersubjectively agree upon. This shouldn’t change. With the human sciences it already gets a bit tricky, for obvious reasons. The problem with the post-truth (and post-science) trend is that “perception is everything” and “reality is what I make it to be” spills over to the hard data sciences, such as climate studies. The moment we start to change methods or definitions, we inherently throw doubts on what science and scientists should be about.