That statement is absolutely untrue. Maybe it is true for you, but it is not for me, and not for the vast majority of the people I interact with, ESPECIALLY the scientists.
Perhaps you misunderstand the context of everyday life being the generalization in my post? I am sure that the vast majority of scientists undertake completely objective
scientific work, but that does not mean the same scientific rigor applies in how they live everyday life outside of work.
Do you objectively know your car will get you home, or
trust it will not break down? (even though you might mitigate risk through regular servicing)
When/if you married, did you perform a polygraph and/or functional MRI on your future spouse's brain to have empirical evidence that the 'love' was there, or was it taken on
trust?
Last time you got an a flight, did you ensure the aircraft had been serviced and checked for metal fatigue, or did you
trust somebody or some system should be doing such things and it will probably be OK because you
trust the statistic that indicates less likelihood of dying in a plane crash than a car crash? (Again, if you got on the plane, you likely had no empirical/objective proof it was safe for flight and exercised a cognitive bias to believe you won't be in the small statistics of persons killed in plane crashes).
Unless you are obtaining the empirical evidence for every daily decision you are faced with making, you inevitably must be exercising some element of trust/faith in some pre-existing belief about others or some societal system. If you do not exercise such, then in that moment, while you are unable to examine or validate any empirical evidence useful to understand the specific situational context, you would be incapable of making a decision leading to an action.
My other point was we can think we're more objective than most, but then that just shows (when we look at the real evidence) that we all lie to ourselves.
The point is everyday life is based mostly on some kind of trust in people and systems (with a stronger bias to trust if we believe those people or systems have agreeably objective science behind them) - we are hard-wired for it. I don't want to derail the thread completely, but there is an abundance of social and evolutionary psychology evidence to re-iterate the point if one chooses to look. Or, you could take it on
trust!
But to be completely fair, I have to accept that however the above is informed from my reading of psychology papers (on a casual interest basis), it does lend itself to being a refutable hypothesis. So I am happy to consider proofs we're not exercising trust/faith in everyday decisions and that somehow everything a scientist does in life is always objective and empirically based, which is what a refutation of the above requires.
To make things easier, if we can find one scientist who supports the republican party and another who supports the democrats, and both claim to be objective evidence-led individuals - who is right, and mustn't both be right to refute my point, otherwise at least one of them is trusting something he/she shouldn't be?