And now you are swinging too hard in the other direction. We can and do draw distinctions between narratives as we best we can.

The unattainability of ultimate truth does not negate the partial truths we are able to grasp.

No, but it does negate their status as objective, and it gives us cause to be suspicious whenever people start trying to wear that particular crown. If anything this is the entire point of empiricism, that we're only able to produce approximate descriptions of reality that are valued for their utility rather than their approach to some gilded ur-state called "Truth". Keeping that in mind (what some people might call "skepticism") is what allows us to observe the distinctions between narratives in the first place.

HN is not famous for its deep philosophical thinking. People want to believe that the world simply quantitative and we are objective observers. Subvert the narrative and you get downvoted.

So in effect, you're saying all domains are like the art world.

Metaphysics are a problem created by the fact that your brain is smaller than the universe. It's hard to walk away from that.

E pur si muove.

If you are an empiricist worth your salt this (the fundamental lack of objectivity in human knowledge) is a vital piece of understanding. Being blind to the flaws of your instruments is a terrible way to do science. Also I find it ironic that this quote is probably apocryphal and yet is offered in defense of objectivity.