(my emphasis) That's not the same thing as saying it is "true" true.It is true as far as we can tell, so why does science not deal with truths?
In philosophy, "truth" has a more careful definition than it has in real life. Science does not deal with truth but in reality. You don't need absolute knowledge to function in the real world - good old approximate knowledge is fine for sitting down and hitting keys.
And the best notion is to sort out what is not true. In a way, the only certain truth we can have is of falsehood.Religion has nothing to do with truth, science is the best notion of truth we have,
... you may notice that not all mathematical constructs have their analog in reality. Even some of the ones that looked promising, like Euclidean geometry, turned out to be flawed. Don't get too cocky about math - it is a human construction.and mathematics is the basis for this.
Learn Humility monkey-sage ;)
Bear in mind that these are philosophical disputes that have been around for millenia right? We are not going to do justice to them in a few forum posts.
I'm gonna give you a bunch of primers:
Realism vs Phenominalism (Problem of perception)
phenominalism: nothing is real - it's all just sense data
realism: there exists a reality behind our sense-data, and our sences give us useful information about it
Empiricism vs Rationalism
Rationalism: some synthetic truths can be known a-priori
Empiricism: the rationalist is full of it.
Problem of induction
... a synthetic truth cannot be known with certainty from repeated observation.
See 4.2 (Popper) for a description of scientific knowledge (deduction) in this context, and section 5 for the application of probability.
There are probably less dry sources but these are pretty short.