It's a good question Morphy. The short answer is "yes I believe there are absolute/ultimate truths"  the long answer gets long.

The main thing that short quote means to me is that truth lies (is found) in interpretation. A line of data is just a line, it is our interpretation of that line that can take us to truth about an underlying process.  I like that it can also mean "lies" as in "deceives" in our interpretation. You can use data that are true to argue for something false. So it also serves as a warning. 

No it's not. It's a fundamental fact about science that the paradigm will change. The smartest prof I knew (who started me down the path of statistics) told us "old ideas don't die- the scientists do. Or stop publishing which is the same thing".  When the shift between the ptolemic and the heliocentric occurred neither disproved the other, both accounted for the observed facts (and we now believe with errors in both stories), but the newer generation preferred the heliocentric. The changes do have something to do with evidence but also much to do with culture and popularity. We see this in the fact that Noam Chomsky is said to have "won" with his answer to B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". Chomsky didn't touch Skinner's arguments- but Skinner's behavioralism was too extreme for most scientists. Fact for fact and argument for argument there was no contest- Skinner was the better scientist. Just not as popular.

The "science does change- that doesn't disprove science it PROVES it" is the standard fall back. I don't know that it actually gets you anywhere. It's an attempt to avoid the charge of formalism and keep science from becoming unrecognizable. But ultimately it boils down to the statement:

"Current science may be wrong- but it will become the correct method and that method will uncover the truth of everything that can be known. Because of this I believe in science (and those who speak for it) now, and if it changes then I will believe it then because it is closer to the True Science."

And that makes it a matter of faith. And that's not a bad thing. I only object when that faith (dubbed 'scientism' by some) is held to not be faith but "Truth" and anyone who disagrees as a rube, a fool, a simpleton, or an atavism.

If there's one thing I've learned from all my reading its "Trust engineers more than Scientists"

Arthur Clarke had something to say on this, in agreement somewhat with Perpetual Student, his "three laws":

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

These are a bit tongue in cheek but have a grain of truth.   One of those truths is that the scientific method is performed by humans and humans are often fond of their pet ideas and reluctant to change.
Pons and Fleischer are still trying desperately to prove "cold fusion", we are told.  Who knows, perhaps they will succeed.

But the bottom line is that the paradigm does, in fact change, the books get re-written, and our view of phenomena gets more and more refined.
The Higgs Boson was put forth as a hypothesis when I was in high school, in 1964.   
It has taken 50 years, and the expenditure of huge sums of money, to confirm it's existence.   

Some ideas are greeted with greath enthusiasm, only to fall into the dustbin of history.  Some are likewise strongly accepted only to run afoul of political or religious considerations.

My viewpoint on all this is pretty much materialist/reductionist.  I don't believe in the "supernatural".  There is no evidence, but I understand that there are very powerful psychological and cultural reasons for widespread belief.
I think that all the mysteries of the universe are, in fact, discoverable.   The universe may be complex, but unlike human beings, it isn't sneaky.   
One may criticize science for it's tendency towards politics and human failings, but look how wonderfully successful it's been!

I'm 67.  When I was a kid, we had a mechanical/electrical phone on a "party line".    We had a fuzzy, black and white television which received one channel.   Going into "space" was literally science fiction.

One might argue that our advances in these areas are in fact the products of technology, the work of the engineers described above.   However, those engineers were working with the discoveries of the basic research of science.
(James Burke makes this distinction... Science for the basic discoveries, technology for the practical application)

I was living in hospice when this thread was around so here's my late entry:
   We have our own family spirit/demon/whatever that haunts us by stealing our personal processions. Here's just one small example of hundreds.  My dad was working on my car in the garage a few years back. I had some insurance papers in my hand and I went up to talk to dad.  I laid the papers on the side of my Jeep inside of the garage, talked to Dad for a bit, turned to grab the papers, and they were gone.  I had never moved my feet and Dad had never come near the papers.  We searched the entire garage several times and to this day those papers are no longer of this earth.  Stuff like this happened all the time to Dad, then me, and now Kate, my daughter.  Sometimes the items are returned.  We'll search the apartment for hours for something to no avail.  Then suddenly it'll be there, in the middle of the livingroom floor where we couldn't have missed it if it was there before.  Marie always thought it was the ghost of a small child playing  tricks.  Kate things it's something much more demonic and dangerous.  I don't know but I wish he'd leave my stuff alone.
    Bikewer, you have a right to your opinions and I respect your intelligence but I find that too much "logic" is just as bad as believing in every crackpot superstition that comes down the pike.  There are things that simply can't be reproduced and studied in a lab.  Also, science is not a static thing.  Ideas that were once preposterous become fact and vice versa.  I like to keep an open mind.