Seeking TRUTH can be carried out in SCIENCE and ART.

In SCIENCE TRUTH finding is dependent on the abstraction level, the lower the level the more independent the TRUTH becomes from the context.

On a PHYSICAL level experiments reproduce well and general laws can be defined which are then universal true statements that we all can agree on. But even on a physical level we run into quantum description problems if we dive into the world of ever smaller physical objects and the TRUTH becomes dependent on the context. In one context light is a wave, in another context light is a stream of particles. The way we set up the measurement defines the TRUTH.

If we move up in abstraction level, to the level of TECHNOLOGY the TRUTH is becoming more dependent on the context. In computer science there is even the example that a true statement is equivalent to the inversion of that statement, see De Morgan's law .

If we move up to the level of BIOLOGY the TRUTH is becoming strongly dependent on the context. This context dependency can even lead to situations that a law can be inverted and still be true in another context, using the Morgan's inversion law. Take e.g. Darwin's evolution law that the best adapted species survives. I can create an example that the inverse law is also true. In trying to live a comfortable life I always pull on the most comfortable T-shirt. After some time all comfortable T-shirts are worn out and the less comfortable T-shirts survive in my pile of T-shirts. Furthermore human intelligence has modified Darwin's evolution law towards the statement that the group that adapts its environment will survive and not necessarily the group that adapts itself towards the changing environment.

If we move further up to the level of PERCEPTION the TRUTH is becoming even more strongly context dependent, e.g. the pitch of a signal is defined by its local context and the same physical signal may give rise to complete different pitches if the context is changed, listen to this example where the pitch rises forever and the locally perceived pitch is determined by the preceding and following pitches.

On the highest abstraction level of PSYCHOLOGY and SOCIOLOGY describing TRUTH is nearly impossible, one needs an ever larger body of context in order to be able to define a TRUTH. In these disciplines formulating laws is extremely difficult and experiments are hard to replicate. Take e.g. a phenomenon as cognitive dissonance, where subjects ignore perceptions that do not fit their personal truth. The revers phenomenon also exists as shown by Daryl Bem. In experiments he showed that if subjects change their view on the truth they are inclined to deny that they formerly rejected this truth.

The principle of TRUTH inversion can also be applied in PHILOSOPHY in a mode of operation that goes beyond the standard modes tollens logic inversion.
My dissertation provides an example using Wittgensteins statement (1989, PhD last page):
"Waarover niet kan worden gesproken, daarover moet men zwijgen" =>TRUTH inversion=> "waar het hart vol van is, loopt de mond van over" (Dutch saying).
Another example uses a statement of Erasmus:
"Een leven zonder boeken is onleefbaar" =>TRUTH inversion=> "De dood met computers wordt leefbaar".

Both philosophical TRUTH inversions are difficult to translate into English, for the Wittgenstein example it would be something like:
"What cannot be talked about, one must remain silent about" =>TRUTH inversion=> "where the heart is full, the mouth overflows"
An English saying example is:
"The early bird catches the worm" =>TRUTH inversion=> "An old fox cannot catch a chicken".

The only discipline that has no difficulty in TRUTH finding is MATHEMATICS, they define TRUTH, e.g. a circle is defined by x2 + y2 = 1. Unfortunately circles do not exist and applications of mathematics are only possible by complementing them with REAL WORLD findings.

And what if we slowly move from more or less exact SCIENCES towards less exact SCIENCES such as HISTORY and POLITICS. Unfortunately opinions are becoming progressively more important and for some politicians the TRUTH is their opinion. When an opinion is supported by an "ideal" many politicians are tempted to follow the path of "the end justifies the means", especially when they pursue a better quality?, of life; ultimately leading to fundamentalism and terrorism.

If you are searching TRUTH in SCIENCE you will need to find a Cooper pair partner that has orthogonal skills allowing to crack problems in super co-operation. In quantum physics two electrons can form a Cooper pair, together they can quantum tunnel through a wire without resistance (super conductivity). John Bardeen formulated the quantum theory on super conductivity in 1957 together with Leon Cooper and John Schrieffer. John Bardeen was a physicist/engineer who chose to study engineering in the late twenties because he did not want to be an academic like his father. He became the only person to win the Nobel prize for physics twice, due to the fact that he was able to form Cooper pairs (triplets) with fellow scientists. In 1956 he won the Nobel prize for his work on semiconductors, together with William Shockley and Walter Brattain, and in 1972 for his work on superconductivity (with Cooper and Schrieffer). Forming a Cooper pair, like e.g. Crick/Watson, Lennon/McCartney, Brin/Page, Ende/Mol or a Cooper triplet like Bardeen/Cooper/Schrieffer is extremely difficult, far more difficult than forming an electron-proton pair, as you can see in the large amount of marriages.