Lots of interesting things to read about from various scientists here. One notable non-scientist in the menagerie is actor Alan Alda.
The idea that things are either true or false should possibly take a rest... For me, the trouble with truth is that not only is the notion of eternal, universal truth highly questionable, but simple, local truths are subject to refinement as well... I wonder, and this is just a modest proposal, if scientific truth should be identified in a way that acknowledges that it's something we know and understand for now – and in a certain way.
Alda's one of those artsy people, who want everything to be fuzzy. And I'm also kind of a platonist. So it's easy for me to dismiss this in knee-jerk fashion. Except that I sort of agree.
Because, while I like exactness and binary propositions, I'm also a computer scientist, and we all recognize that logic is a game of symbols, organized into proofs, otherwise known (sometimes) as algorithms. And we know that a theorem is not as important or fundamental as its proofs.
This perspective actually accords well with the idea that we ought to prefer thinking about why scientific facts are provable -- namely, because of empirical evidence linked by deduction -- to the idea that they are true. Because, proof-theoretically, "true" just means "provable". Add in the notion of constructivity, and now the algorithmic nature of proofs starts to remind one of the procedure of scientific experimentation.
(The analogy is rough. Science is about refutation rather than proof, but maybe you can come up with a kind of coalgebraic notion of refutation which is algorithmic in the same way that constructive proofs are.)