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?

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'.

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.

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 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.

I agree

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.

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.

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 suggest that the scientific method satisfies my general consensus test