It is not really a flaw in the scientific progress, but in the distribution of trust. The scientific method essentially offer eventual correctness, that is that every mistake made now will be eventually corrected.
How we decide when it is enough is a separate hard problem we still do not know how to handle. This is also the reason why science as arbiter of truth is at best sketchy (out of very specific instances e.g. black holes).
>eventual correctness, that is that every mistake made now will be eventually corrected.
That is not a feature unique to the scientific method, though. The same could be said of narrative tradition, or the heat death of the universe for that matter.
I disagree, I hold in very high regard the truth of traditions, but they clearly lack an internal method to correct wrong assumptions. They have an external method, that is a society dies and a "better" one take its place. Science does not need to (either figuratively or literally) die to fix wrong information.
With a stretch of the meaning then, ok. But it is like saying that evolution will create the perfect creature eventually without mentioning that everything resembling us will be long dead at that point.
How we decide when it is enough is a separate hard problem we still do not know how to handle. This is also the reason why science as arbiter of truth is at best sketchy (out of very specific instances e.g. black holes).