research methodology and statistics

i personally always struggle with going in depth on extremely mundane topics. for example: -why do we need research? well, that's a no brainer, you may say; we need research to generate new knowledge and to validate the one that already exists. absolutely correct, i will reply. so be it. but then, how do you know how to generate knowledge? you will look at me real weird and say - well, "professor", we have scientific method for that, and yada-yada-yada. very well, i say. this so called scientific method, generates knowledge, sounds great. so the knowledge it generates is real, "true" in the sense? you say: well, not really, as we dont know absolute truth, and we dont even have the capacity to know what absolute truth is, as it is merely a concept created by us to just approximate reality to the extent that our ability to observe and reason allow. this is where i get you. basically, you just admitted that "truth", in absolute sense, simply does not exist. so then what is the point of research? why are we doing it if almost everything we know is false? well, here you can start to get sceptical: this is not true, if you claim that truth does not exist, how can you overthrow everything and claim that everything is false now? and here is where you get me. granted, world as we know it, if we really think about it, is a mere fraction of the absolute reality which we may never comprehend yet receive a chance to experience. what we see, feel, hear, smell, touch is a drop in the ocean compared to what really exists out there but slips away from our perception. hence, tiny knowledge is better than no knowledge at all. we need research to make sense of our own small little world that we defined and essentially created, attempt to explain the nature's laws and connect the dots. in essence: research is not generation of what is, but swaying away from what is not.