That science strives towards truth is a major part of Scientific Realism. Given the problem of once popular, now discarded scientific theories, it would be naïve to think that scientific theories are simply true. But sophisticated realists make a variety of claims about how parts of theories are true, or that theories are approximately true. For example, structural realists think that the mathematical structure of mature scientific theories does track the truth. Other kinds of realist claim that certain theoretical terms do refer to parts of nature, and thus do say true things about them.
Realism is certainly not the "general view" among philosophers of science, although there are a large number of realists.
So what do you call those who oppose realists? Anti-realists? Well, there are a variety of different positions that fall under the umbrella term "anti-realist" and I guess they disagree with each other as much as with realists. (Realists disagree with each other a lot too...)
- Empiricists claim that empirical adequacy is the chief (only?) goal of science.
- Relativists claim that scientific knowledge is socially constructed
- Instrumentalists claim that scientific theories are just means to the end of arriving at predictions
These are all hopelessly charicatured positions, and there are doubtless plenty of other positions but I hope this gives rough idea. Anjan Chakravartty's SEP article on Realism has a section discussing some of these possibilities.