Objectivity is a fine thing. Unfortunately it is subject to human interpretation. If you think science is all the better simply by declaring itself to be "objective," or by declaring that "all observable phenomena may be classified as natural," then you are seriously unaware of its limitations while operating with a mode of science that is beyond its cherished "falsifiability."
There is no such thing as a human observer who is not guided by some set of philosophical assumptions. Anyone who claims himself to be completely and totally objective is a liar, because objectivity by definition resides outside of the observer. The observer cannot go outside himself, but is constrained by all that comprises his personal inductive and deductive skills.
Correct. (And obvious.)
Anyone who claims himself to be completely and totally objective is a liar, because objectivity by definition resides outside of the observer.
Also correct. (And a bit more subtle.) Btw I'm glad you do agree that objectivity DOES "[reside] outside of the observer". Much better than claiming that an objective fact, in the event "the content of science," "cannot possibly be divorced from the philosophical underpinnings attendant to each observer".
As you now correctly note it IS "divorced". I.e. the objective truth is what it is. And therefore it is possible even for subjective reason and perception to be subject to the objective truth. IOW the content of science is what it is. Since we can look at what scientists do, and because there is a professional literature that describes (with some reasonable degree of objectivity) what they do, we can determine which ideas are or are not part of science. None of this requires that scientists, much less science itself, be "objective". That's a confusion of categories.