Look, I expect to have to tell PhilX when he is misusing that accusation because he has no philosophical background and is not very bright.
But you claim to teach philosophy, so you do know the difference between criticism, insult and ad hom. You soil yourself further each time you scrape the barrel with desperate gambits.
I really am surprised that subjectivity and objectivity stand in any great need of clarification. But I suppose we can get there fairly quickly within context by defining through usage as we go.
At the most basic level, what separates a real science from a pseudo-science is that real science examines facts about the world which are independent of the observer. The energy released when two chemicals interact, which can be measured, a genomic sequence which can be read, and so on. If one researcher observes that some specific biological process occurs, he can describe it, and another researcher somewhere else in the world can look at the same stuff and see the same thing. These facts of the matter are true or false independently of the observer, which is why they are objective in nature.
Psuedo-sciences require excuses for having something else which doesn't meet those criteria, but which they will attempt to describe as being better, or just as good. Nevertheless, they cannot graduate to actual science until they can provide actual objectivity in the observations, independent of the observer.
Science is of course an incomplete project, there are arguments about how to interpret some data, and differences of opinion about some pretty fundamental stuff. Some might like to imagine this makes all science a little bit subjective. But such claims are mistaken. If the science is a real one, the debates are inevitably settled by further examination of the objective facts of the phenomenon under investigation. All the navel gazing subjective debates ultimately become interesting stories about the history of science because they stop being actual matters of current science once the controversies are resolved. For this reason, the shared subjective consensus of observers is contingent upon its current usefulness in regards to available objective data, but it is the job of a real science to jettison such consensus when it no longer accounts for observable objective facts. This has happened many, many times.
Intentionality is not even subjectively measurable. The "number of features mentioned" may be measurable, but that is not the intentional act, it is a reaction is it not? Even if we persuade ourselves that the person undergoing the experience can actually be described as truly counting the "properties" of their experience, this is of course the properties of an experience not an external thing. Other researchers cannot recreate that experience, nobody can can under any circumstances show an error has occurred. This absolute dependence on the subject for every fact of the data makes that data definitively subjective in nature.
As regards intensionality - I'm not sure I see how that came into things. I may be no expert on mister Husserl, but it is certainly the other word that I associate with him. Either way I suppose my objection remains the same.
There is no point in the Quantum Theory discussion. You have taken a metaphor and interpreted it as a description of a factual state of affairs. Likewise it may be true that the more we seek, the more we find, but that is just a cliche. What we find is either objectively true/untrue, or subjective and unaccountable.
Qualitative isn't a dirty word. Importing qualitative data into a quantitative argument is a mistake though. I shouldn't have to tell you that, and certainly not this many times.
I am not claiming that you have an audience of gullible people here. Round here you seem to have almost no audience at all. So why you keep playing to the empty gallery is a mystery.