If facts were objective, then they wouldn’t need to be discovered, would they?
People talk about “debating the facts”, “getting their facts straight”, “contesting the facts”, “disputing (or agreeing on) the facts”. If facts were objective none of that would make any sense semantically. How do you explain those expressions?
If facts are objective they can never be wrong, right? Is there any knowledge that people have that has no possibility of being wrong? All scientific knowledge begins with the premise that future evidence might show it to be wrong, or at least flawed. So then by your argument nothing known to science is a fact, because nothing known to science is objective.
If facts are objective, then mustn’t it be true that no facts can ever be known? Because how can a human mind know anything that is, by definition, independent of itself?