What a fascinating aspect it is - and every bit as relevant to the historical sciences such as anthropology, archeology, Egyptology and evolutionary biology. In these fields, the investigator may be working mostly with physical fragments of the past with little or no recorded language to "frame" the evidence. Even so, they attempt to reconstruct what likely happened in an environment which is not always "information-rich".
Nevertheless, as your except noted "So we keep our distance from the past, from the stories we tell, knowing that facts may be uncovered that will change our stories; other viewpoints may turn us away from what we now think is relevant, and other ways of understanding may make us reconsider everything."
IMHO, that is the responsible way to deal with the observer problem in looking at the past.
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
. . . . . The Rubaiyat Omar Khayyam, 1120 AD, the FitzGerald Quatrain LXXI
the tendency of some disciplines of science (perhaps seeking to be autonomous?) is to ignore and/or deny the observer problem. That tendency casts a dark shadow over many pronouncements, particularly those of the metaphysical naturalists who practice philosophy under the color of science.
That that is, is. Such a simple statement to cause Man so much trouble. Truly A-G, as you note, the observer problem is a human problem. And, it is as much the human will which betrays Man, as it is his senses or the boundries of his knowledge. And thank you, cornelis, for the ruminations of Ortega Y Gasset, agonizing over this self-same 'observer problem'. There then arises the issue where lies the boundry between the Individualism of Gasset and the chaos of wilful intemperance. How to distinguish liberty from license. How may Man enjoy the benefits of living in a state of nature, yet find the necessary security provided by association.
A-G, I've had the opportunity to discuss various of the practical aspects with some of those whom you call metaphysical naturalists (i.e. The Masters of the Universe). They exhibit an appalling disinterest in, or perhaps instead a lack of appreciation for, the most basic concepts of the consent of the governed. Do you suppose that to be a manifestation of their metaphysical naturalism? I think maybe so.