If your point is that science is not as reliable as some people give it credit for, I am totally with you. With that said, it sounds like you are suggesting that there is a way of knowing things that is more reliable than, or at least as reliable as, science. Is that what you are saying? If so, then what and how?
An issue with scientistic types is that they think that scientific truths are the ONLY truths, and that other kinds of truths that do not overlap with scientific truths, like subjective personal truths, literary/mythological truths, and spiritual truths, either do not exist or are not really truths. With the later two there is reluctance in our modern secular society to see myth and spiritual experiences as "truths" because of the modern cultural struggle against religious fundamentalists who wrongly treat them as scientific truths.
The terms you are using sound like they could be interpreted many different ways. What would you say is the difference between a scientific truth and any of the other truths you are describing, and how can the other ones be known/detected?