I think you're saying that scientific statements are objective compared to more obviously subjective ones, such as to those that merely express emotions.

But when analyzed, "objective" there seems to mean "rigorous," "useful/empowering," and "anti-idiosyncratic." The scientific method enables us to bypass our individual biases, but not our universal, species-specific ones.

Scientific statements (made in artificial, more precise, amoral languages) are indeed more objective than natural language statements that express our personal opinions and preferences. But science still expresses the subjectivity of our species, and is thus collectively subjective (or "transcendental" in something like Kant's sense) rather than purely objective or inhuman.

Science still serves the purpose of empowering our species with models, analyses, and explanatory reductions that enable us to exploit natural weaknesses with technological applications. The purpose of scientific knowledge isn't objective. We add that purpose to the natural facts that we explain. We add also the subjectivity of how the human mind tends to generalize and to simplify with our objective conceptions (mass, energy, space, time, etc). When we break nature down into its parts, we're objectifying nature, which is a form of humanizing it.

I don't see how we can understand something without humanizing it, without reducing it to our level, even if we also dehumanize ourselves to some extent, in raising us to the object's level.