Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said, "Science is truth". This is not an accurate statement. In the face of anti-science sentiment in our country it is important to be accurate in our statements and positions. Statements such as this actually harm science as a field because they are untrue.
Science isn't the truth. It's a method to seek the truth, and its results may come close to the truth, but science and the findings it elicits are always open to correction, updating, and improving.
The scientific method is simple. A basic description could be: idea about reality test confirm or disprove idea about reality test again refine idea about reality repeat. Ideally you also have others replicate your tests and examine your tests for soundness and to verify they are testing the idea correctly. The process is never finished, although it may be reduced or left alone once the confirmations become overwhelming. Yet even the most vetted scientific idea is open to retesting, revision, updating, or change.
'The Earth is round' is a more correct statement than 'the Earth is flat'. However, 'the Earth is an oblate spheroid' is more accurate than 'the Earth is round'. However even 'the Earth is an oblate spheroid' is not completely accurate. Mass is not evenly distributed around the Earth's surface, the 'bumps' and 'ridges' that constitute mountain ranges and so forth create a much more complex shape.
Science creates and works with models of reality. A simple model is less accurate than a complex model. Even a complex model is less accurate than reality. Our models can never match reality because they would have to include everything modeled, creating a 1:1 match to that being modeled. This is simply not possible. Hence, this results in science being able to approximate or approach truth, but will never be truth. A syllogism can show this:
An example is your own body. Your body is made up of several trillion cells, estimates are around 30 trillion. Note that not all of those cells are neurons in your brain. Assume you could model your body where each neuron in your brain could represent a single cell in the model (which is likely not even possible, but we'll assume they could). You would run out of neurons long before you modeled your whole body let alone that the neurons would have to model themselves. Hence, you can never hold a 100% accurate model of your body in your mind.
Yet even with the less accurate models we can hold about our body we can accomplish our day to day tasks of eating when hungry, sleeping when tired, and so forth. We do not need a 100% accurate model of our body to experience and accomplish things with our bodies. We can play sports without perfectly modeling our systems of bones, muscle, and sinew. We can hold conversations without perfectly modeling the neural structure of language.
Even something much simpler than a human, such as an ant, cannot be completely modeled. We have the computing power to quite accurately model an ant's brain. However, creating an 100% accurate model of the ant in its entirety would require modeling each of its cells, the effects of each molecule and atom of the air around the ant, each molecule and atom of the ground the ant walks upon. The effects of gravity of all of the mass that could affect the ant. Not to mention the environment filled with scents and pheromones, light traveling to the ant's eyes, and so on and so forth. Thus, while our model of the ant's brain may be amazingly accurate, it does not represent the absolute 'truth' of the ant's existence or being. The model is incomplete.
As it is with all of science. We can create more complex and accurate models but we will never quite reach 100% accurate. It is simply not possible. Hence, science will always be the pursuit and seeking of truth but truth itself will always be just out of reach. This does not make science useless, science is still our best method of seeking truth that humans have developed. Science though, is not, nor ever will it likely be, truth itself.