Thorne. I suggest reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or just readers digest version in the wiki article below. I think you'll like it, because it sums up pretty much what I think you're trying to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions

It's a scathing critique of scientific truth being hammered into people, as if it is the only truth. And this book did create a revolution. Even though it wasn't written that long ago, it has already changed scientific terminology in its fundamentals.

Scientific truth changes every couple of weeks to fit the newest theories. The reality isn't changing, only the "truth". What does that tell us about scientific truth. I think this is the strength of science, and is why it is a superior method in finding the truth.

And here Richard Dawkins makes a case that we'll never know the truth, because we can't. We can only understand things that our brain is already hard-wired to accept.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

So basically, we probably couldn't understand reality, even if we had all the required education and had it read out to us.

This makes things a tad more complex. We have to believe in a truth that is a simplified model. ie, not true. The trick is to pick the one that is as much like reality as possible, and just pretend like its the truth, for our own mental well being. I mean, demanding it from ourselves to only accept he absolute truth would drive anybody bonkers. This explains the total mess the world is in. How do you have an argument where everybody involved that no matter the outcome everybody will know they all are wrong.