In my opinion scientific truth is just as changeable and human as all other modes of study, investigation, conversation and study and so should not be held in higher regard than other modes of truth.
There is room for disagreement on some of the premises pointed to in the above posts, both practical and philosophical disagreement. It is not strictly true that science is any more "provable" than other disiplines. The chemistry example from the fourth post is a good example of provable science, but there are examples of unproven and disproven science we can point to. String theory is fundamentally unprovable, yet it is considered science. Cosmology that imagined the earth as the center of the universe was a scientific truth that was overturned, just like the science that suggested that coffee was bad for the human body.
The fact is, science does proceed from a set of assumptions and presumptions which are subject to the same kind human folly as all other types of study. As stated in post #2, science is not as objective as it claims to be.
To refer again to the fourth post, we see a good example of history as a study that offers challenges to precision and the determination of "truth", yet there are plenty of other examples in the realm of the study of history that are provable and true. Archeology has made numerous discoveries related to ancient civilization and to ancient life which are definitively and categorically true.
Like science, history has its claims to truth and has its limits.