That's fine. What I take issue with is your notion that other forms of inquiry - like history or philosophy - aren't just as capable of making the kind of progress that matters in the sense that it matters that science makes progress.

It matters that we would not now repeat many of the mistakes of the past in terms of enslaving people or forcing women to remain at home. It also matters that we talk about such progress while allowing substantially similar practices to occur under our own noses, to say nothing of other parts of the world.

Peter Singer used to talk about the "escalator of reason," because once you start using reason to defend your position, you have to play by its rules, and admit when others have made good points too. That escalator is capable of taking us up toward truth not just in a scientific context where we can easily perform repeatable, standardized experiments, but also in a social context where the variables are people and the processes are fact patterns whose meaning depends on how individuals are situated relative to one another.

It's not that I don't believe in objective truth. It's that I think you've defined it too narrowly.