if its your supposition there is no such thing as objective truth or it cannot be understood as such

That's not what I said. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. "It Is what It Is" is a clear statement of "Truth". You keep using the phrase "objective truth," and I am trying to show you that "objective truth" and Truth are the same exact statement.

I never stated we couldn't understand Truth, I said we couldn't speak it. Our language is insufficient. Our definitions are incomplete in every possible sense. We say, "here is a spoon," for example. Well, what is a spoon?

spoon: A utensil consisting of a small, shallow bowl on a handle, used in preparing, serving, or eating food.

Does that really define the Whole of what you hold in your hand and call a spoon? Maybe its a shiny, curved metal thing. Maybe its a bunch of metal ions in a specific mixture (alloy) that is hard and conducts electricity.

Our current best model of Reality (quantum electrodynamics (QED)) suggests the most accurate way to look at things (most likely to agree with measurement) is by writing down the equations of a bunch of waves and adding them up into one wave (even if it’s a little tedious on the scale of a spoon).

Each of the constituent waves are really just the one wave, and there is no way to distinguish the waves of say, any one particular electron. In fact, there is no way to say the resultant waveform is really made up of a bunch of little waveforms, that is instead an idea that we have, and the math works out pretty well. But really, there is only one wave. This wave is connected to all other waves. It is connected to the "waves" that make up the hand holding the spoon for example. They also are completely inseparable except through thought. That separation is not truly appropriate, because the system is described most accurately by the single wave. Extend that out to the whole of the universe, which is, through QM, most accurately described by a single wave. The abstraction of the individual "spoon" wave is an idea that is an approximation of the most accurate form of the equation.

Maybe the Truth is, there is no “spoon.”

There is a Truth, but we can't speak it because our words are insufficient. That doesn't mean we can't understand it. I suggest the best way to understand the Truth is to stop trying to speak it, and learn how to listen. It speaks to us all day long, every day of our lives.

The scientific method is specifically designed to eliminate bias

That is the opposite of the truth, as I have explained above. Bias is a fundamental (inseparable) part of the process. Explain what it is to eliminate a suspected bad data point other than bias? Just because we can tie it to an event, does that make it sound decision? Yet we do it all the time. That is our intuition saying, we should remove this because when you bumped the table, the detector went BRRSST.

And it is perfectly sensible to do that. Either that or repeat the whole experiment if necessary. What we would not do is include that data point and go through all the process of explaining why because then we would never get anything done, because these sorts of human errors occur all the time.

Science is not about removing bias. If it were, we wouldn't have to debate the science. It would be the truth. It is DEBATE that is the real strength of science, not "lack of bias" in measurement, presentation, etc. That is a myth and has nothing to do with the reality of how science actually proceeds, and has since its beginning. That is why it is oriented, geared specifically, towards debate, because the complete elimination of bias is impossible.

if its your supposition there is no such thing as objective truth or it cannot be understood as such

That's not what I said. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. "It Is what It Is" is a clear statement of "Truth". You keep using the phrase "objective truth," and I am trying to show you that "objective truth" and Truth are the same exact statement.

I never stated we couldn't understand Truth, I said we couldn't speak it. Our language is insufficient. Our definitions are incomplete in every possible sense. We say, "here is a spoon," for example. Well, what is a spoon?

spoon: A utensil consisting of a small, shallow bowl on a handle, used in preparing, serving, or eating food.

Does that really define the Whole of what you hold in your hand and call a spoon? Maybe its a shiny, curved metal thing. Maybe its a bunch of metal ions in a specific mixture (alloy) that is hard and conducts electricity.

Our current best model of Reality (quantum electrodynamics (QED)) suggests the most accurate way to look at things (most likely to agree with measurement) is by writing down the equations of a bunch of waves and adding them up into one wave (even if it’s a little tedious on the scale of a spoon).

Each of the constituent waves are really just the one wave, and there is no way to distinguish the waves of say, any one particular electron. In fact, there is no way to say the resultant waveform is really made up of a bunch of little waveforms, that is instead an idea that we have, and the math works out pretty well. But really, there is only one wave. This wave is connected to all other waves. It is connected to the "waves" that make up the hand holding the spoon for example. They also are completely inseparable except through thought. That separation is not truly appropriate, because the system is described most accurately by the single wave. Extend that out to the whole of the universe, which is, through QM, most accurately described by a single wave. The abstraction of the individual "spoon" wave is an idea that is an approximation of the most accurate form of the equation.

Maybe the Truth is, there is no “spoon.”

There is a Truth, but we can't speak it because our words are insufficient. That doesn't mean we can't understand it. I suggest the best way to understand the Truth is to stop trying to speak it, and learn how to listen. It speaks to us all day long, every day of our lives.

The scientific method is specifically designed to eliminate bias

That is the opposite of the truth, as I have explained above. Bias is a fundamental (inseparable) part of the process. Explain what it is to eliminate a suspected bad data point other than bias? Just because we can tie it to an event, does that make it sound decision? Yet we do it all the time. That is our intuition saying, we should remove this because when you bumped the table, the detector went BRRSST.

And it is perfectly sensible to do that. Either that or repeat the whole experiment if necessary. What we would not do is include that data point and go through all the process of explaining why because then we would never get anything done, because these sorts of human errors occur all the time.

Science is not about removing bias. If it were, we wouldn't have to debate the science. It would be the truth. It is DEBATE that is the real strength of science, not "lack of bias" in measurement, presentation, etc. That is a myth and has nothing to do with the reality of how science actually proceeds, and has since its beginning. That is why it is oriented, geared specifically, towards debate, because elimination of bias is impossible.