Science is not perfect, but it provides evaluation mechanisms to reduce the doubt.
I'm not sure what you are including in "philosophy," but there are entire subfields dedicated to this very issue.
However, unlike the sciences, you have to work for it. Nature doesn't give you the answers.
But I guess science-denying people argue just like I did above when they dislike the idea that science admits that it may be wrong and will update itself with new evidence. But I can see how someone with a different epistemological footing would be annoyed with this.
Something of this sort can never be "wrong", because it will just incorporate an update when it's proven wrong. But is that updated thing really the same?
It's a cheap trick to try and get around of being ever truly wrong. If you turn out to be wrong you can just say "but I knew I may be wrong and would have to update" so you weren't really wrong in the deeper sense!
Note that I adhere to this scientific ethos as well, but I can see it has a wobbly structure in this way.