It is often claimed that a scientific theory can be proven false, but can never be proven true.
In abstract terms, for a particular experiment, let T represent a theoretical prediction, and let E be the results from the experiment.
Roughly speaking it is said that we can say a theory is false if T is inconsistent with E. If however these are consistent, then we still cannot say for certain that the theory is correct.
Now on pondering this, I began to question if we can in fact even say that a theory is false if T contradicts E. Instead rather, all we can say is that T is inconsistent with E, but we cannot be sure which is incorrect (e.g. faulty experimental design or faulty theory).
Generalising this further, my thoughts are that we can never evaluate the truth of any claim, but rather the best we can do is evaluate the consistency of a claim with other claims.
Now as to the question, I'm wondering if there are any specific philosophical schools of thought that address truth in this regard, as being nothing but a collection of internally consistent claims? Are there schools of thought in agreement/opposition to this idea?