I liked your last title much better...
>>>There were many references at the top of your post… I don’t intend to dismiss them so casually but they only make one simple point: that there are many disagreements within science. As there are in all areas (religion, law, medicine, politics, etc.) where there is an active exchange of ideas. Science acknowledges it’s internal disagreements and embraces them. Members of the scientific community are among the most ruthlessly meticulous critics of each others' ideas and theories. They often love to prove each other wrong.>That is part of the reason why I TRUST science: this type of rigorous 'self-policing' has a tendency of keeping things real. The arguments that are levied tend to restrict themselves to ideas and theories. In contrast, I've observed that in philosophy, perhaps due to it's inherent nature, there is much more criticism based solely on the choice of words. Coming from a science background (as I qualified early in my post) I’m less interested in semantics ("scientific method vs. scientific methodologies", "notion of what scientific truth even is", etc.)>>Philosophy does not have proprietary rights to the word "truth". Usage of the word ‘truth’ does not obligate a subject to the domain of ‘philosophy’ and hence to philosophy’s definition of ‘truth’. Again, I’m not interested in word games…most people understand what is meant by Scientific Truth or have a good idea of the spirit of the meaning. (For example, you certainly understood it the way that I intended it to be understood). Although usage of the word ‘truth’ is not exclusively the right of philosophers, I will qualify my usage of it by stating that the term "scientific truth" is being used to distinguish from any "truth" about the physical universe that is derived without using the Scientific Method.>"Ultimate Truth" is a term used to communicate the idea that Scientific Truth may develop to an absolute understanding of the physical universe.>First, why CAN’T one be a materialist but not a platonist?? I don’t follow you there at all (?)
What you see as my ‘misinformation’ I see as your ‘preoccupation’ with philosophical categorizations. If you want to get strict, I think what you probably meant was "neo-platonist".Here is what I am saying: our understanding of the physical world is best achieved through the system of scientific investigation. Other systems may or may not complement this process but should not replace it.