Of course some who do not understand science uncritically let their beliefs wave like a flag in the breeze of every new pronouncement. And of course there are some scientists who trumpet their latest result as proven and verifiable truth before in fact the scientific process to prove and verify has taken place. Both of these can prove to be unfortunate, unforced errors.

The scientific process, however, is usually quick to challenge, test, and demolish untruth of this kind. If it is not a result that can be replicated and verified as true, then whatever scientist says the earth is flat again gets hammered - by science. And so it goes, including sometimes re-establishing the thing initially proved false! [Cold fusion anyone?]

However the sometimes crazy zig-zag of science goes, it is over time impressive, self-correcting, and a truth-finder without compare - so far!

On a practical level some good rules are:

Listen to people and answer the things they actually say; not the 'easy to shoot down' arguments you would have liked them to put forward.
Sounds obvious, but I've lost count of the number of times people have demanded I defend things I never said, on this site. Inventing straw men to defeat, is practically all most UK newspaper columnist can do.

See if you would accept the standards you are demanding of others yourself. Try the same sentence, but with your name in there. See how you like it when the 'the rights of group x must be ignored' becomes 'my rights must be ignored'.

Something is true depending on if it matches reality not because who said it.
When lawyers start attacking the witness instead of the facts; it's because the facts aren't on the lawyers side.
If you can't produce facts to back what you are saying up; you are wrong.
People are innocent till proven guilty. In the absence of evidence the assumption is innocence.
These sounds so obvious and far below the high minded arguments I'm seeing in this thread. But the standard of debate on this forum doesn't even satisfy these obvious rules in reality. Invention backed up with abuse is the norm.
qjs

Having worked in the field of biomedical sciences for over 35 years, my one observation regarding this analogy is that (in my humble opinion) our collective scientific knowledge/observations for all the sciences is less than 1 drop of that tidal pool. I will go even further and say that despite all of our scientific studies, experiments, observations, etc. our collective knowledge accounts for less than 1 grain of sand of the sands in all of the desserts, oceans, beaches, etc. combined. The more we think we know, the more we really don’t know.

Pete

I sincerely hope so! Nonetheless we can only work with what we have, including whateever tools we have to improve our knowledge.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.

— Carl Sagan

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1997), 304

Some Buddhist thought on truth:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha, 563-483 B.C.), Kalma sutra

'A man has a faith. If he says, "This is my faith," so far he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion, "This alone is Truth, and everything else is false." In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say, "I believe this." So far he respects truth. But because of his faith or belief, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false." Buddha, Canki sutra, 93 of M.as set forth in What the Buddha Taught, p. 10, by Walpola Rahula, 1959 (2d ed. 1974), Grove Press.

Rahula explains:

"However you put it, faith or belief as understood by most religions has little to do with Buddhism.

The question of belief arises when there is no seeing - seeing in every sense of the word. The moment you see, the question of belief disappears. If I tell you that I have a gem hidden in the folded palm of my hand, the question of belief arises because you do not see it yourself. But if I unclench my fist and show you the gem, then you see it for yourself and the question of belief does not arise. So the phrase in ancient Buddhist texts reads, ' Realizing, as one sees a gem (or a myrobalan fruit) in the palm.' " Ibid at pp. 8-9.

[Disclaimer: I am not Buddhist nor do I have any financial interest Buddhism.]