This is also a good article. I read most of this book a couple of years ago but lost it with about 20 more pages left to read. [wsws.org]

This is a good article "Limits on our understanding"

Few of Horgan's interviewees responded favourably to his thesis that science is coming to an end. He found support only from a select group, most notably the radical linguist Noam Chomsky, Thomas Kuhn, one of the founding fathers of postmodernism, and Clifford Geertz, who has pioneered postmodernism in anthropology. Geertz declares anthropology to be "telling stories, making pictures, concocting symbolisms and deploying tropes." Kuhn's theory that science cannot attain objective truth but only arrives at a consensus among the community of scientists has laid the basis for more recent postmodern theories. He readily agreed that science might come to an end. The more typical response to Horgan's "end of science" thesis came from Ed Witten, the pioneer of string theory in particle physics. Witten berated Horgan for his "shoddy journalistic ethics". He particularly attacked an article in which Horgan accepted Thomas Kuhn's conception that science "does not converge on the truth". Witten scathingly challenged those like Kuhn who purport to believe that science is not objective, but make use of the technological benefits which are derived from it. "Did Kuhn go to a doctor when he was sick? Did he have radial tires on his car?", he asked. [wsws.org]

As usual the actual claims of postmodernism are being misrepresented.
The real claim is that our experience of reality is subjective and as that is all we can assess about the world it means that effectively for the individual reality is subjective.
That does not mean the laws of physics are magically suspended.
It does mean that your experience of cold is different to mine. I'm currently snuggled up in bed on a "cold" morning. It's 14 degrees C. In this weather my sister in Cork would have the kids out in the park because it's a lovely day, and various Canadians would be laughing at me. Not to mention the folk in Svalbard. So what is the reality? Is it cold or not?
Objectively it's 287.15K. That's of precisely no help in choosing today's clothing. To me the day is cold and I will dress to suit that. My reality is that it is a cold day, despite the fact that thirty years ago 14 degrees at this time of year would be considered a warm day and I'd have been wearing tee shirt and jeans.

Reality is socially constructed, and therefore subjective. Different cultures exist because they developed in sufficient isolation from each other and could therefore develop their own shared systems and beliefs. We look at people who eat beetles or maggots or whatever and are horrified, while observant Hindus may be horrified that we eat beef. There are academic subcultures and linguistic subcultures and religious subcultures and... on and on. Science is a system that has its own language, rules, standards and methods, and has spread widely because many of the processes that have been developed within the system are beneficial for mankind. But that does not mean that the scientific method should be viewed as sacrosanct. The arrogance that leads many "scientists" to look down on people who don't share their worldviews is massive and troubling. The demand that a claim should be buttressed by "evidence" that only the scientist gets to accept or reject is simply the agreement of a subgroup of society that their method surpasses all others. In many cases, it does, but in other cases, it definitely does NOT. Using "the scientific method" to devise a parenting style or communicate with a lover or communicate with one's neighbors may produce limited results. There is something to be said for intuition and sensitivity, and I believe that traditional science underestimates the value of both.

If reality were subjective, I'm pretty sure I could convince myself that I was rich and living the good life if I tried enough... For the record, I've had no such luck yet.

that depends. The structure of scientific revolutions is considered by many to be a soft post-modern work. And Kuhn doesnt deny that science works he simply states it doesnt work with the simplified system (hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) commonly taught in school.

So, if you consider his work to be post-modern what you just said is not true, if you don't consider it post-modern you would be right.

Nonsense