Change?

[naut]

The maddening inconsistency in these discussions about the 'worldviews' of the two, some go and attack the religious worldview and then go and 'defend' science with the results, probably blissfully unaware of how they are just talked about two separate things.

do you have any proof that this method isnt wrong? can you prove without using science, that this method is right. do you believe there is just one objective truth (or many objective truth, but atleast that there is a notion of truth that can be known by humans objectively)?
[...]
BUT what if there is no such objective truth.

Do you have any proof that this method is wrong?

It matters not one ounce whether it is right or wrong. The fact that it works is the reason it is still in use. Things don't survive multiple centuries if they are not useful and do not work. And why would you attempt to disprove science with anything other than science? If you are lucky may be able to disprove with a mystical method, but why would you? There's no point in doing so as they are completely different concepts.

If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself. There is objective truth. A objective descriptive truth would be, "I am 5 foot 11 inches", I am 5'11", this is objectively true. I'd argue this further, but it becomes a loop of semantics.

and if so, given the possibility of alien lifeforms, do you believe that would have the same method (given that they are "advanced" enough by our standards).

And?

true, theories and methods within science (which we would describe as a scientific method) have been discussed, tested, discarded, concluded started again blabla... but not science itself, not the scientific method, which is partially discussing, testing, discarding, concluding, restarting until we come close to that notion of objective truth.

Not true. The methods we used today have been refined from principals of experiments to a more elaborate and diligent process to eliminate human error and factor out bias, while maintaining and increasing reliability and accuracy and validity. And then a scientist discloses his experiments and publishes them and lets other people see them. And if the other people may try for themselves, or they may criticise the approach.

only if the information presented to me is correct and presented in a comprehensible form. which is debatable.

That's perfectly acceptable. We live in secular societies where you are allowed to study ideas, reject ideas, embrace ideas, formulate ideas, as and when they suit you. That is a change. You want to do that before the rise of science then you either become a monk and learn about god, or you challenge authority and die a heretic.