How can some people think that reality is subjective, and then claim to support science?

Not even Science believes anymore in pure deterministic cause and effect.

Randomness is quite common in nature.

Reality is very subjective.

No two persons see the surrounding world in the same way.

I thought absolute truth claims were only stated in terms of Philosophical questions and not in any other objective findings of the world? I would doubt that what you claim about how people see's the reality as subjective is actually true. Also, let's take a look into Science: Science studies the world at a lot different lenses as religious people do. It's not based on subjectivity but objectivity - that is always letting the world tell us what it is rather than we tell the world what it is, like Religions would do.

A lot of absolute truth claims are said in terms of Ethics and other Philosophical areas that just does not have black and white outlook in life. Unlike how Christians being taught that a lot of life is nothing more than black and white dichotomy, some of us disagrees and states that no, there are many different shades of grays that makes life all that more complex and harder to differenciate.

It would also seem like you're confusing Philosophical ideas with Scientific facts: both of which are completely different and sometimes antithetical between the two. Because Philosophers asks the question why and Scientist how, they're both completely different field of study. If one finds some beauty as magnificience in an artwork that gives us many meaning, others might look at the artwork and study how the brush strokes are made and in what and how accurate one color blends into another. Like I said, both completely different and sometimes antithetical between the two. This is where absolute truth statements are derived from.

Everybody finds the artwork beautiful. This is an absolute statement. But many of us says no, there are people who does not find the artwork beautiful at all.

I hope I cleared up confusion in you and helped you give you a concise understanding of Philosophy and Science. =)

such claims,theories, laws ect are an approximation of the truth. hence they are subject to change and be replaced by new ones.

in the end our perception is subjective. there may be no such thing as absolute or ultimate truth.

edit: gravity is both a theory and a law. many details about the theory of gravity are subject to change. once it was thought that gravity was one of the strongest forces. we now know it is one of the weakest. why do you believe science is so unyielding?

reality is subjective because it is filtered through our sensory perception. the laws, theories,ect dont matter. every experience is going to be a direct result of the sensory organs and the chemical process by which we interpret sense stimuli.

The fact we know something does not mean we don't know we don't know.

like the earth being flat, there are such things as atoms and particle. time and string theory.

To take your example, Gravity is an Observed phenomena, but there still is not way to explain what forced, like electromagnetic fields actually cause it.

We know that mass caused a change in Gravity but not see the force between the two objects.

So I would say we are still ignorant as far a science goes.

if everything could be purely objective then why would we need to seek answers?

Subjectivity leads to doubt . . . . .we can not "doubt" gravity, but we can doubt that gravity is a "substance" as once thought, which leads to greater questions (by the way we understand the effects of gravity but we still can not define it).

"Law" is an archaic term, but most people get tired of saying "hypothesis" . . . it is better that we observe it as "law" which keeps us from falling off cliffs I think

Of course there is absolute truth, but sometimes we get it wrong and we get it wrong for a long time. In fact we haven't been even close to the truth since the middle ages (1300s)