Good science would expect the participants to be skeptical of their own work while similarly maintaining skepticism of others.
Ive found, in my field, the overlapping and compounding of evidence helps in developing answers that are often applications "ready" and therefore "less wrong".
Weve had entire working hypotheses in science that were later proven dead wrong, Like the entire working system of "basin development" and synclinal theory. This led to some interesting requirements (like gravity would hqve to be suspended for millions of years as basins developed). With the gradual unfolding of global tectonics (finally synthesized into a working theory after about 30 years of compounded evidence). We now have a theory that <While it still may have some flws< is "less wrong" than the earlier (Eardly) geosynclinal theories. AND, it has given us entirely new systems of geophysics ,minerals location, and evolution based upon tectonics, emplacement of aligned mid oceanic lava deposits , which resulted in entirely new thinking about biogeography.
All of these were "Built up" by discovering mounds of overlapping evidence that was often introduced via research from totally unrelated arenas. Often, the very falsifiability of a means of research was used to develop subsequent work plans for xpeditions, lab work and yes, needed funding. The example of how the discovery of the intermeidate relative fosil of fish and tetrapod amphibians was developed entirely on a Popperian kind of statement.
"From what we know about the evolution of tetrapods from specific lobe finned fish the place that suc ancestral forms should have existed is in a limited area of Devonian sediments"
Geologic mapping is sufficiently globally mature so we actually know where sedimentary rocks of this certain age are to be found. It took the scientists about 4 years before they made the discovery . Since there were many families of devonian fish and jut ONA that had the characteristics that the scientits would seek, these teams took a big chance with funding and being "less wrong" but it pid off. I know one of the palleontologiwts who worked on the team and hed been busy looking for similar species in the red cliff of NE Pennsylvaia for many yqrs before the final expedition.
Hed been off in the Pa Hills by being a few ten million years early.
However, saying all that, I dont think that your denial of my way of interpretation comes from a careful analysis of scientific evidence . It comes more from an emotional commitment that (as Ken Miller said it) cannot believe that human nature derives from nature alone. Science challenges the belief in the "specialness " of our species.