Just as many interpretations can arise from empirical data, so are words and expressions have wildly different interpretations, and so are points have various ways to connect them. But certainly there are some ways that we deem more effective or more true than others, but it is not only that they do seem as such to us but it is how reality and our relation to it works.
Reality comes with a predetermined structure attached to it and the quest to knowledge entails our web of knowledge in our minds moving closer to that structure. Not that we will one day be able to fully correspond to it, as we are mortal and finite but it serves well to not move far by adopting frameworks that diverge from the truth of things, which makes it possible for progress to take place.
And also we cannot exhaust the knowledge to be extracted from the world, it is an infinite well of potentiality that makes it impossible for any unified theory of all to be properly formulated.
Out of the three pillars of science, the rationality, empiricism and objectivity, objectiveness is the hardest to defend truly, the implication is not that no matter how rational and empirical scientific claims might be, they never carry the authority to be binding outside of scientific communities. I say this because there is no theory that stand by itself in scientific inquiry free from any personal convictions on the part of the scientist, it is necessary that it stands on prior assumptions which ultimately must rest on a framework of philosophical commitments.
My point about scientific claims not being authoritative is that their formulations can never be enough to warrant adoption, there will be always enough good reasons that will be put forwards by critics as to why we should reject them or be skeptical towards them, and that can stem from either disagreements about the assumptions, method of interpretation of data or the underlying philosophical principles motivating the claim.
This links back to the fact that the structure of reality though existing is not fully accessible and cannot be exhausted and encompassed by systematized theories and there will always be ways that one can show that some aspects are not accounted for in a specific theory.
Indeed, plurality cannot be a good reason to be rid of the objective character of reality which enables any inquiry at all into it, for if we get rid of it we would have no reason to undertake it that will not come out as arbitrary. In this reality is objective but the scientific inquiry with reality as its object cannot be fully objective and neutral.
Another thing is that this serves as a good response to reductionalism prevalent in scientific claims, in that a particular phenomenon is due to this particular principle and only this one, we can indeed affirm that a theory is true and that phenomenon corresponds to it but not just it, that there is more to it than just one explanation.
The problems start to be manifested when scientific explanations come to perceived as the be all end all for all knowledge and in attempt of this, scientists and philosophers of science can put themselves in philosophical commitments that are indefensible, positing principles that cannot by definition be justified scientifically such as the axioms of science which point to outside of themselves, such as uniformity of nature, both in terms of space and time and the laws of nature, since as far as science goes nothing can be proven to be a law. And even the assumption that we do have epistemic access to these laws which remains a question of metaphysics and not science.
Which points to the conclusion that one cannot fully base his behavior or ethics and his life and beliefs on a scientific set of facts of theories, since science is neither the domain of ethics nor the domain of metaphysics, theology or politics, but the domain of natural analysis of empirical natural phenomenon that should serve practical engineering and not personal convictions; and this is not an admission of pure instrumentalism since what is false or fictitious cannot actually serve utility or in other words the more true, the more useful.
Not that science cannot inform aspects of life and I am not positing a hard division but I am calling for discernment of what can serve value judgements in light of scientific claims, in order to avoid abhorrent applications of scientific knowledge of the time, examples of which are present in plenty in the history of science a prime example of which are eugenics popular in the 20th century, or the moral implications of determinism which some scientists are inferring from some quantum theories, or the implications on supposed scientific claims about psychology and consciousness.