To answer the question in the title, allow me to suggest a hypothesis that has more basis in Sociology than Quantum Physics: contextuality is uncomfortable for western minds. Here in the Industrial West (aka cultures that historically adopted, or were forced to adopt, Abrahamic faiths for quite a few centuries as a result of the Theocratic imperialism that used to exist), people have been conditioned/coerced into embracing a black-or-white, all-or-nothing, heaven-or-hell worldview. We find *dogma* comfortable (although it's not healthy - but a lot of comfort zones aren't healthy) because so did our parents, and so did our grandparents, and so on.

Embracing and accepting outside of Academia the idea of contextuality (scientifically proven time and again, as you said) would imply having to confront this inner monster of ours which is still finding comfort in a dogmatic way of describing the world. "This exists here so it exists, period". "That doesn't exist over there, so it doesn't exist, period", we automatically tell ourselves with every step we take because it's so deeply ingrained in our psyche. In fact, reality is more complex and less extremist than that. You demonstrated very well in this article how objectivity should still be pursued and not thrown out the window, but it does not reign supreme in spite of our perception - or if it does, perhaps it escapes our comprehension because of the limited way in which we perceive things. Alas, this is very threatening to the comfort a lot of people find in pretending to have a "fool-proof" understanding of life because that's the illusion that dogma fed us culturally: we can have certainties. Sure, maybe some certainties are more harmful than others (such as certainties based on nothing but a holy book), but even in contexts we'd like to think of as conductive to real learning - such as Science - we're still hoping to find absolute certainties in a very... weirdly... dogmatic way.