Science isn't truth

It seems common to equate science and truth in many discussions and to regard science as a search for truth. There are widespread challenges to “prove” that something is “true”.
Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery points out that in scientific terms it is impossible to confirm anything as an absolute truth. He preferred to use the expression “xxx corresponds to the facts” rather than xxx is true. The objections to Popper are more to his recommendations on how to conduct science (using falsifiability) to the exclusion of all other methods than his underlying objection to “truth”.
It would be acceptable to Popper to say that scientific knowledge corresponds to the facts but not that scientific knowledge is true. Scientific knowledge can thus be challenged by discovering more facts to see if it still corresponds to the new facts. A key scientific method is to use current knowledge to identify the unknown or untested and make predictions. Verifying predictions, especially if they differ between different theories help create new facts and reinforce our confidence in our knowledge (as pointed out by Popper in chapter 3 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery).
Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.

If what you say had substance Engineering would not exist !

Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.
Pretty much. It turns out "predictability" is good enough.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24429/what-is-wrong-with-poppers-theory-of-falsification Has a few folks giving their two cents worth. @Drux Popper himself. He admitted that original falsificationism does not account for evolutionary biology, (or complex Earth systems) "Darwinian evolutionary theory failed to satisfy that criterion so it was not a scientific theory but only a metaphysical research programme". Indeed it does not work very well outside of physics, "it excludes not just evolutionary biology but also historical geology and much of astronomy". ncse.com/ncser/13/4/popper-evolution And even in physics Lakatos had to dilute falsificationism to make it minimally tenable. – Conifold Jun 12 '15 at 22:51
Even better,
Falsification: Was Karl Popper Wrong About Science? By Alex Berezow — August 19, 2016 American Council on Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/08/19/falsification-was-karl-popper-wrong-about-science Popper's views are highly influential. Indeed, few scientists would dispute the importance of falsifiability. But just how realistic is Popper's spin on the scientific method? Does science actually advance in this way? In a paper nearly a decade old in the journal Foundations of Science, philosophy professor Sven Ove Hansson argues that Popper is wrong. To make his case, Dr. Hansson selected 70 papers* from the journal Nature published in the year 2000. He asked a series of questions and classified the papers accordingly. His schema is shown below. (My explanations, which are additions to the original figure, are shown in red text.)...
It's worth the read for sure.

Hmmm, how about:

SCIENCE ISN'T ABSOLUTISM

Nothing made of thought is truth, but rather only a symbol which points imperfectly towards the truth.

It seems common to equate science and truth in many discussions and to regard science as a search for truth. There are widespread challenges to "prove" that something is "true". Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery points out that in scientific terms it is impossible to confirm anything as an absolute truth. He preferred to use the expression "xxx corresponds to the facts" rather than xxx is true. The objections to Popper are more to his recommendations on how to conduct science (using falsifiability) to the exclusion of all other methods than his underlying objection to "truth". It would be acceptable to Popper to say that scientific knowledge corresponds to the facts but not that scientific knowledge is true. Scientific knowledge can thus be challenged by discovering more facts to see if it still corresponds to the new facts. A key scientific method is to use current knowledge to identify the unknown or untested and make predictions. Verifying predictions, especially if they differ between different theories help create new facts and reinforce our confidence in our knowledge (as pointed out by Popper in chapter 3 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.
I've never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That's like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn't truth but religion is. Silly of course.

Science is the methodical inquiry into Universal values and functions.

Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.
What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer?
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.
What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Science, I just explained it to you. Knowing you will not view it, I'll still make an attempt to give you some alternative views of the Universe and how it functions, regardless of your spiritual perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.
What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Science, I just explained it to you. Knowing you will not view it, I'll still make an attempt to give you some alternative views of the Universe and how it functions, regardless of your spiritual perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I Very Cool. I haven't seen that, just started it. Thank you! {Actually after I got going I recognized it, though it was fun watching it again. Good documentary.}
Published on Nov 16, 2015 NOVA leads viewers on a mathematical mystery tour--a provocative exploration of math's astonishing power across the centuries. We discover math's signature in the swirl of a nautilus shell, the whirlpool of a galaxy, and the spiral in the center of a sunflower. Math was essential to everything from the first wireless radio transmissions to the successful landing of rovers on Mars. But where does math get its power? Astrophysicist and writer Mario Livio, along with a colorful cast of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers, follow math from Pythagoras to Einstein and beyond, all leading to the ultimate riddle: Is math an invention or a discovery? Humankind's clever trick, or the language of the universe? Whether we think we're good with numbers or not, we all use math in our daily lives. The Great Math Mystery sheds fascinating light on how math works in our brains and ponders the ultimate mystery of why it works so well when decoding the universe.
Science is about constructive learning. Faith is about obedience to someone else's notions.

Great link. Haven’t watched much NOVA lately.

Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.
What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Science, I just explained it to you. Knowing you will not view it, I'll still make an attempt to give you some alternative views of the Universe and how it functions, regardless of your spiritual perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I Ok thanks. So then you agree using faith is unreliable in finding what is true and what is false??
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.
What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Science, I just explained it to you. Knowing you will not view it, I'll still make an attempt to give you some alternative views of the Universe and how it functions, regardless of your spiritual perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I Ok thanks. So then you agree using faith is unreliable in finding what is true and what is false?? It comes down in your definition of "faith" - of course we all have faith in ideas we've come to trust. Might I suggest that the problems starts with self-certainty in your own faith. Does our faith in a particular pet idea, override our ability or willingness to recognize conflicting but valid evidence? Are you willing to question your own faith and reconsider it in light of new information and experiences? True scientists are consistently most critical of their own work, they look for holes in their argument, they play devils advocate with themselves, etc. You'll never see anything like that from the Alt-Right-wing/neo GOP - all they know is their own self-certainty, absolutism and a commitment to never ever changing their opinions no matter how much evidence is brought to bear on a particular topic. Oh and when they are called on bullshit - they always deflect attention to something else, avoid the real issues every damned time.
Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.
What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer? Science, I just explained it to you. Knowing you will not view it, I'll still make an attempt to give you some alternative views of the Universe and how it functions, regardless of your spiritual perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I Ok thanks. So then you agree using faith is unreliable in finding what is true and what is false?? It comes down in your definition of "faith" - of course we all have faith in ideas we've come to trust. Might I suggest that the problems starts with self-certainty in your own faith. Does our faith in a particular pet idea, override our ability or willingness to recognize conflicting but valid evidence? Are you willing to question your own faith and reconsider it in light of new information and experiences? True scientists are consistently most critical of their own work, they look for holes in their argument, they play devils advocate with themselves, etc. You'll never see anything like that from the Alt-Right-wing/neo GOP - all they know is their own self-certainty, absolutism and a commitment to never ever changing their opinions no matter how much evidence is brought to bear on a particular topic. Oh and when they are called on bullshit - they always deflect attention to something else, avoid the real issues every damned time. faith as in how God botherers justify their beliefs.

The one true faith I have, is in the human ability to eventually express the Universe in mathematical terms.
I come from the simple standpoint that if in just a few decades we can mathematically predict the existence of a probable fundamental particle, such as the Higgs boson, and then prove it’s existence under laboratory conditions, I am confident that the Universal mathematical values and functions have already employed these processes long before we built Cern to simulate an environment which must have existed since the beginning.
Even if we assume that this phenomenon must be probabilistic in nature, the combination of the immense space and time available to the universe presented a high probability (potential) that all the fundamental properties of the fabric of space would be created as a the results of the BB, and the known evolutionary spacetime processes thereafter.
When I saw the following episode on fractals and how the fractal functions (simple self-iteration) can be used to render objects at universal scale which are indistinguishable from reality itself, it only reinforced my belief that we are on the right path in solving the puzzle of the nature of the universe and how it evolves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Exnv8Ym7s

faith as in how God botherers justify their beliefs.
What do you know about God? Who are you to speak for Her?
faith as in how God botherers justify their beliefs.
What do you know about God? Who are you to speak for Her? I tend to agree with Carlin, that IF there is a God, it has to be a man. Women would never screw things up this way.
faith as in how God botherers justify their beliefs.
What do you know about God? Who are you to speak for Her? I reject the claim that a god gods exists. Those that claim to Know god are the god bothered.
The one true faith I have, is in the human ability to eventually express the Universe in mathematical terms. I come from the simple standpoint that if in just a few decades we can mathematically predict the existence of a probable fundamental particle, such as the Higgs boson, and then prove it's existence under laboratory conditions, I am confident that the Universal mathematical values and functions have already employed these processes long before we built Cern to simulate an environment which must have existed since the beginning. Even if we assume that this phenomenon must be probabilistic in nature, the combination of the immense space and time available to the universe presented a high probability (potential) that all the fundamental properties of the fabric of space would be created as a the results of the BB, and the known evolutionary spacetime processes thereafter. When I saw the following episode on fractals and how the fractal functions (simple self-iteration) can be used to render objects at universal scale which are indistinguishable from reality itself, it only reinforced my belief that we are on the right path in solving the puzzle of the nature of the universe and how it evolves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Exnv8Ym7s
Yet all this is out the door when objectively criticing US imperialism and capitalism .