There are different forms of knowledge to describe the world. Religion is one.
Erm... Religion is not knowledge.
Science does not tell us about truth (neither does religion)
Religion does speak of "truth", but science does deal with facts.
"We used to think that Pluto was a planet and now we don't,*
The knowledge about it didn't change, just the classification, which is different. In that case, the size didn't change, it was just that more planetoids were found and scientists had to decide whether to keep the previous classification or not.
It was the definition of planet (opinion) that changed, not what we knew about Pluto.
Science is valued not because of its ability to tell the truth but because of what emanates from it - quality of life, medical care, technology, guns, planes, cancer drugs,
It is valued because of what it emanates from it, because it is able to actually tell the truth, rather than opinion.
Opinion doesn't translate into reliable data to develop reliable medical care. (see Homeopathy)
ethics such as equality for women.
No, it doesn't come from science. :)
If science told us the absolute truth about something, it would be incontrovertible. It isn't. It's a better way to understand the world (if technology, medicine and whatever are your thing) but it's not 'truth', but, if everyone adheres to it, we'll all be better off (if you like technology, dishwashers, etc.. Some don't - and then there's a clash).
Oh, dear. It doesn't lead to technology if everyone adheres to it or not. FGS. It's whether it tells the truth or not, yes. Machines work with laws that are measurable and don't change according to opinion.
All scientists realise that our current knowledge about the world can be overturned in the future, as it has been in the past.
More like improved.
If there is more data, not when opinions change.
Continents didn't start drifting because more people started believing they did.
Jesus!
PS- I like it when people explain to me what and how scientists think. 