Our senses are not objective, and our mental processing of said sensory input even less so.

While generally I do agree that trying to be 'objective' in the way you describe is a solid approach, I've met plenty of people and had plenty of experiences where this backfired because I or others had too much trust in the ability to be 'objective' about something, overruling our very subjective but also correct 'gut feeling'.

That is largely why objectivity is a personality trait. Most people, at least non cognitively, don’t want objectivity. They want comfort or reassurance.

You can’t pretend to be objective when the appearance of such is convenient, because then you are just lying to yourself about dodging the emotional considerations that compose a decision. This sort of self deception is far more common than you might find comforting. Even highly objective people sometimes need guard rails to ensure their decisions are objectively quantifiable.

All decision making is a highly emotional experience in all cases for all people. It’s just how our primate brains work. For highly objective people a careful consideration of data and perceptions of balance are a fundamental part of that emotional experience in a way they cannot be for other people.

What I was trying to say is that it is intractable to get the right data in many common cases, and in others unsolvable because of different premises. In the latter case of course it is good to be objective about what the premises are, but you can't derive a solution there often - it's possible but may not be worth the time needed.

Handwavy: often what you need is more rough-and-ready approximate statistics than any real logic. You are still approaching it with an objective mindset, but you are being realistic about the limitations of your data and modeling capabilities.

And at the end of the day a lot of what is important is also subjective.