Things are measured and evaluated by how well they match the reality.

No, you are confused because you try to build up a strawman.

The criticism of EBM made in the article isn't that the authors want that truth isn't evaluated by how well something matches reality. It's that the particular way of checking how well something matches reality used by EBM claims a monopoly and that this monopoly is bad.

In practice the authors consider it facism that the FDA forbids 23andMe for giving patient data interpretation. 23andMe doesn't provide evidence for their product that's high in the Cochrane hierachy and that's why the FDA blocks them.

In addition they also argue that focusing on objective measurements isn't enough. It's easy to find subjective measurements that are generally believed to be of importance: Statements of conflicts of interest. If a paper declares a conflict of interest that's not about the objective facts the paper investigates but about a subjective feature of the investigator. Having knowledge about that subjective feature helps the reader to know how well the paper matches up with reality.

It's a complete strawman to assume that requiring papers to report conflicts of interest and having the readers take them into account somehow moves the reader away from reality.

Apart from the the IPCC report does contain subjective expert credence as a standard for whether certain statements have something to do with reality. It's not just that the particle-physics community has a higher bar for discoveries.

In fact, I think it would be very harmful for the society to decide that there is a single, objective, "scientific" dignified way to die.

The whole point of this discussion that to be able to have good scientific view on the topic, medicine would need to move away from focusing on trying to provide a single objective answer.