I think there is some misinterpretation on the purpose and functionality of science with relation to objectivity and truth. I have to focus on this to help ground my previous comments. I hope that at the end my response also gets at your comments on Galileo's truth in discovery, even if he had kept it to himself. The story "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" might also be a good

metaphor for what I'm alluding to.

---

Humans experience subjectively, not objectively. There is no individual (beyond the concept of a god) that may have objective insight into reality.

Reproducibility shows consistency to manifest phenomena -> Predictability or model building is not a reproduction of the phenomena, it is a tangent line approximation to the phenomena.

Reproducibility != objective reality. It is an approximation. We can reproduce to infinity. We can fill out the space of possible measurements to whatever specified __resolution__ we care. We are still subjective beings creating approximate curve fittings to some specified resolution. All sciences must work with tolerances to some specified resolution, be it in measurement or statistical.

The theory of inertia is a human understood and verbalized representation of a phenomena __so far as we have observed it__. The __phenomena__ of inertia may be very consistent with our verbalization of inertia, but that's as far as we can ever be sure of.

Pure logic (and by proxy mathematics) is the closest we can hope to for any Truth, but (1) Those Truths are still subjective to the specific axioms you are working with and (2) It is impossible to use those rules to prove consistency within said system.

Workable truths (aka theories of the natural world - gravity) are communicable to other humans, but still incomplete representations. By communicating, we are able to build and approach better representations of the world by bringing them up to scrutiny. The best team members are also the best rivals.