I've attended a lecture of Mr. Kroto, where he also came to that quote.
...H. Kroto emphasised that it is not necessary that it'll lead us to the final truth. He explained this statement in a rather different way, however: that, compared to other methods, science just offers better reliability, because:
Scientific statement must be foolproof and consistent with observations in nature and other fields of science, otherwise it is not a scientific statement. There is no dogma, which says that this is like that just because it is.
Religious statement, such as God exists ... well ...
There are several ways to understand reality: theology, philosophy, deductive logic, mathematics, science, engineering, humanities, emotion, etc. Each has its proper place. Some folks, usually scientists, assert the superiority of science for understanding truth.
However, science can only investigate one aspect of truth-- empirically demonstrable facts about nature. Each discipline investigates different aspects of truth. If I want to know about the motion of planets, science (astronomy) is the best. If I want to know who to marry, emotion and humane insight is best. If I want to know ultimate purpose in life, theology is best.
Some disciplines are more basic than others. Philosophy and logic are more fundamental than engineering and science. The reason is that the assumptions on which engineering and science are based are philosophical insights. Inductive and deductive reasoning, for example, are essential to engineering and science, but are not science themselves.
The notion that science is more "foolproof and consistent with observations in nature" is itself not a scientific assertion. It is a philosophical assertion. And if you want "foolproof" and "consistent", don't settle for science. Engineering is much more consistent and foolproof than science.
There's much less debate about the specifications for bridge abutments than there is about string theory. If atheists want certainty, there's a whole hell of a lot more consensus about the internal combustion engine than there is about cosmology. New atheist credo: 'Newton's laws of motion are all we need to understand the meaning of existence'.
But what about dogma? Science is full of it. The scientific method is dogma.
Truth is approached in many ways. Science is a superior way to understand natural processes. But the assertion that science is the only path to truth, or even the major path to truth, is so illogical that it merely excludes that person saying it from serious discussion.