Science has always been seen as a quest for knowledge that quenches man's thirst for the ultimate truth. This is actually a statement that really can't just be stated but must be followed with a deep explanation as not everyone would agree with this saying. Even if the statement is agreed upon then the topic becomes has science actually progressed, stood still, or is it going around in circles. In my empiricist opinion there is a science that might not be perfectly objective, but never the less it is leading us down a royal road that ends at "the truth".
             Now in the philosophical world there are two types of beliefs in the constructionists and the foundationalists. A constructionist, like an absolute skeptic, believes that there are no solid roots for science to use as foundations. This means that science can't progress because it is not possible to have an end without a starting point. Then there is the foundationalist, like an empiricist, who believes that these roots do exist, that means there is such a thing as science that can progress. An objective science would be a way that mankind can learn more about itself and the world around it and objectively or without too much distortion by human bias or beliefs. Only then can this progression or movement up the ladder to all-knowing be understood as long as you start from the foundation.
             One of the great minds to agree with the foundationalists belief was French Philosopher Rene Descartes. He came unto one point in which he philosophically liked to use as a starting point or foundation. I think therefore I am. Simple enough but it was a starting point to build everything up from there. He was not an empiricist though, he felt that his senses betrayed him in dreams and therefore did not fully trust them. Dreams and simple arithmetic fascinated Descartes; even in a dream the square root of four is two as well in the real world and everywhere...