It's interesting that the article "http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/science/4008/what's_truth_scientific_method_under_the_microscope" makes one of the most common mistakes about comparing 'science' with 'belief systems'.
It quotes Jonah Lehrer as summarizing the situation as: "When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

   Essentially this argument has been put forth here on Mudcat threads many times using slightly different words. They assert things such as "Science is just one more belief system. You 'choose' to accept the conclusions of science, just as others choose to accept religious teachings or ESP results".
   The mistake is in confusing the obvious ability of our human species to accept or reject ANY proposition with the actual, ultimate status of the proposition.
We see this clearly when we continue the little stories about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and, perhaps, the Boogyman for children. From about 2 to 6 or 7, kids are able to simply 'believe' these stories, and often take other stories read to them as literal. After 6 or 7, they gradually begin to see flaws in the fabric, and just like the child who shouted "But...the emperor HAS no clothes!", they use growing 'reason' to relegate childhood myths to the proper place. (I remember at about 10-11, 'proving' to my younger brother that Santa could not possibly make all those stops in one night...though *I* had firmly held on to them until about 7.)
Still, we meet people who, despite their realization that Santa was only a nice story, continue to hold onto stories about elves, fairies, witches, unicorns, ....and many other entire 'systems' involving astrology, crystal balls, Tarot cards, Oujia boards, lines in the palm, reincarnation, out-of-body experiences, various forms of ESP, Alien abductions....and religion. And of course, they will tell you.."but THESE things are different! They are widely 'reported' and MY experiences were so intense that they MUST be real!"...etc.

   The ability of the mind to 'see patterns'...such as 'constellations' in the sky... is both a virtue & a problem, for although without the ability to see patterns, we could not do many things...yet it is so easy to grant certain subjective patterns a status equal to objective patterns.

If we had, as written about in some science-fiction stories, machines, computers...or in combination, robots... whose 'thinking' abilities rivaled our own... and fed those totally 'neutral', totally objective, programmed machines the same information we process in our free will, we just might get a lot fewer propositions ruled as 'verified'.

   So... the article "What's Truth? Scientific Method Under the Microscope
God-experience, ESP, and the decline effect." IS attempting to show how 'scientific truth might be just a choice'...and falling into the same trap as many people do every day.
To repeat my main point- The mistake is in confusing the obvious ability of our human species to accept or reject ANY proposition with the actual, ultimate status of the proposition.

...and... it is instructive to read another article on that site:

A Philosopher of Religion Calls it Quits, where basic assumptions are explored & questioned.