Truth always suffers from too much analysis. (Frank Herbert)

The only tool we have available to provide support or not for the truth of anything is application of the scientific method. — Scribble

And which scientific test would you subject the truth of this claim to?

I suggest that the scientific method satisfies my general consensus test

Then why not make this general consensus business the method of establishing truth? Because either way your initial postulate is false on pain of vicious circularity. It fails its own dictum unless it relies on itself, which isn't gonna be very helpful.

Ok, but, apart from the truth or otherwise of the the scientific method, back to the question: is there another method. probably 'general consensus' was a red herring. Any guide to other methods?

I'd say observing a thing reliably and consistently being some way if perfectly fine way of establishing something to be true generally. That's not science, otherwise science would be too broad a category and no one would regard it so highly. I see, feel and hear this phone in my hand, so I'd say that's about as good evidence as required to reasonably assert that "My phone exists" is true.

That is close to the scientific method. If that process starts with postulating that something is true (a theory), and then observe in a reliable and consistent way whether 'the thing' appears to exist or behaves in the manner postulated, and no instance is found where the postulate is not satisfied, then that IS the scientific method.

I suggest that the scientific method satisfies my general consensus test — Scribble

That's an argumentum ad populum.

.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

wondering what you think of this as a workable definition of truth -

truth is something one believes and tries to act in accordance with.

I want to link truth to what we do, or at least try to do

Then delusions would be true, and by definition a delusion is not true so I think defining truth in that way does not make sense.

yea can see that - agree - back to the drawing board -

In my opinion, the objective of science is the simulation of behaviour, with the aim of inventing efficient and understandable languages with which to communicate the body of results of simulation experiments, for purposes of engineering.

By the most pragmatic interpretation of that aim, any invented language and method of simulation suffices as a scientific method provided it achieves its goals of behavioural replication to the level of precision deemed necessary for a given engineering application.

Yes, true and truth are not the same; true is an adjective and truth is a noun. Otherwise they may be the same. E.g. It is true that I exist. The truth is that I exist.

I agree

The objective of science is far more than that. Science seeks to understand and describe nature, which would include behaviour and one tiny field of nature. Here by nature I mean everything we might describe as part of something we call reality, from quarks to Mr Putin to the pyramids to the Higgs field permeating all of space.

the scientific method. — Scribble

Which scientific method?

Falsification? Coherence? Survival of the fittest paradigm? Research Programs? Anything Goes?

It's not exactly clear what the scientific method is.

All those things might be part of the process of application of the scientific method, but there is one 'method.
The scientific method is: one begins with a theory or hypothesis, which might be preceded by research or other process, such as just a 'bright idea' or a guess. Then one would test the hypothesis, commonly by experiment, or by gathering data relevant to the hypothesis. This stage should be impartial. One should not be just looking for data to support the hypothesis, but data to test the hypothesis. One should especially search for data that disproves the hypothesis, since by that means one is likely to strengthen the conclusion if the conclusion is in support of the hypothesis. Tests should include statistical analysis of the results of experiments or data collection. One then comes to a conclusion about the validity (or truth if you like) of the hypothesis, or the probability that it is true. Note that I have not said 'prove', because that implies an absolute yes or no. In most cases for a hypothesis that is supported by this process there will remain that it might be disproved when new data comes to light in the future, which commonly occurs in scientific activity. Disproved, because usually one instance of a hypothesis being untrue would show absolutely that the hypothesis is not true, at least if it was hypothesised that it should hold in all circumstances.
Although this is called the 'scientific' method, I don't believe it should be applied only in cases where the hypothesis might be regarded as a 'scientific hypothesis', which really brings me back to my original question of whether any other process can be used to test whether something is true (or better, probably true) or are all other candidates just the scientific method in disguise.

The scientific method does not "accept' or not accept anything and the only 'requirement' is that one begins with something to test, usually referred to as a hypothesis. I don't understand some of your response, such as "This excess reality" and "the criteria of science", but I do say that the scientific method is specifically geared towards finding the truth. Its only purpose is to determine the truth of a hypothesis.

...but there is one 'method'. — Scribble

Yours is a neat account of the mythical method scientists tell each other that they use. Please don't read that as being disparaging; it's the sort of thing a budding scientist needs in order to have an idea of what is going on.

But there are many other stories.

None of them will account for how I know I have a headache, how I know I am rather fond of wife, how I know what seven is nor how I know where I live.

But they can. Put those in the form of hypotheses: I have a headache; I am fond of my wife; i know where I live (as for 'I know what seven is', you would first have to state what seven is, according to you). These then become hypotheses. Relevant data could be collected and experiments devised to test these hypotheses. The results could be analysed, and conclusions dawn, such as the probability of each being true.
That is the real method that scientists use, and others use as well, though others would not always recognise what they are using as the scientific method. All scientists, whether budding or experienced, use (or should use) this as the basis of all they do, not just 'to have an idea of what is going on'.

But they can. — Scribble

But we don't. What could count as evidence that I have a headache? "I took some paracetamol, and put a cold towel on the back of my neck, so I hypothesis that I have a headache"?

That is the real method that scientists use, — Scribble

I'm afraid it isn't. It's close.

Have a read of

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#Con

Those two pieces of data are a start. One could gather data from acquaintances about your history of actions when you have claimed you have had a headache in the past and relate that to how you are behaving now, look at other behaviour indications (a physician might be able to suggest what to look for), etc. The result might not have a high probability of being a valid conclusion, but that does not negate the validity of the process.
Ask yourself, what other method is available to determine whether your claim is true?
I think you are saying it isn't the method scientists use. Then, what method do you think they use?

.

Ask yourself, what other method is available to determine whether your claim is true? — Scribble

I don't need a method to know I have a headache.

I might be a bit old fashioned, but in my day the first step in the scientific method was observation, and that was the the way to discover the truth of things.

Do any members know of any other tool or method that we have available to provide support or not for the truth of anything. — Scribble

The question relates to "anything," so as it applies to questions of morality, purpose, and meaning of life, those are matters we don't rely upon the scientific method for. Our method for arriving at such things is rationality, intuition, and reliance upon tradition (to name a few).

I might be a bit old fashioned, but in my day the first step in the scientific method was observation, and that was the the way to discover the truth of things. — unenlightened

Per Wiki, the steps of the scientific method:

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method