The terminology I associate with a science-y explanation -- "measurement", "dimensions", and even "unfalsifiable" (which strikes me as more of a logic statement than a reason statement, and I associate logic more with the hard sciences and reason with social/behavioral et al sciences, for various reasons). Moreover, it reminded me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which I'm sure I spelled wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the name -- the observation of electrons changing properties, which I'll avoid an explanation of because I'm sure you're more familiar with it than I am). So that could have greatly contributed to my categorizing it as a sciency answer.
Furthermore, you overstate the objective/subjective difference of philosophy and psychology as those fields are currently constructed (and have been for some time). A not uncommon occurence of practitioners overselling the value of their field, perhaps, not to knock Andy. Although, I might add that subjective considerations are not always a bad thing in that field; compare the advancements in economics when they finally realized that people are not rational actors.
Also, "the way you look at things" is inherently subjective. In fact, that's what subjectivity is all about. "The way you look at things" is subjective, the way things are is objective.
Oh, and I'm somewhat familiar with arguments that language has no meanign beyond that which is assigned to it by the listener (though usually as part of a philosophical system whose name escapes me (sorry, I'm quite tired) rather than intersubjectivity, though I have seen that term a few times before). Generally, I find them less than impressive.