Have a good night my friend. You may be surprised how your living situation reflects what my own was for many many years. Now they're grown and gone...

Well addressing truth in scientific terms is really only one particular point of view which seeks to ecompass all points of view, ie.:

You must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.
Testable results of reproducible experimentation, and
Observation in nature.
Subject to peer review.

And there we have scientific method. Everything, everything, everything else is up for conjecture.

eg. There is a God! True or false?

False, because you must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.

There is no God! True or false?

False, because you must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.

Do we get science yet? :D

The first step above is a practical one. I disagree with saying that that is the scientific method, but that's just a quibble and not on point.

It is also my understanding that science isn't about encompassing all points of view as much as it's aim is to draw conclusions that are point-of-view-invariant(historically 'objective').

The thread isn't about science or the scientific method; however, falsifiability and verifiability are connected in a rather intimate way. They both employ truth as correspondence to fact/reality.

I'm far from a theist; however, the above is an abuse of language. The statement "There is a God" isn't true or false by virtue of being falsifiable/verifiable. It is true if, and only if, there is a God. The statement is true(or not) regardless of whether or not we check.

Water has a nature to move to cold.