From: Versailles, France
My post fits and works but it is not "true," either, no. Truth is a metaphysical quality. Science is concerned with what can be tested and falsified. And any scientific claim is thus always provisional because the possibility always exists that it can be falsified or revised with new data. We accept these claims insofar as they fit existing data and experience, no more and no less.
I'm a fallibilist in the tradition of Pierce and Popper, with a healthy side dish of pragmatism, American style.
I'm formerly a lawyer as well, btw. I do not believe the law deals with truth as such, notwithstanding its occasionally ecclesiastical airs. The life of the law lies not in logic (let alone "truth") but experience, to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. But this may be a difference between English and American jurisprudence.
Two lawyers arguing about truth and law (and in English...)
Sure we are in a wargamer world
And I'm not a lawyer