The relation between Dhamma and reality itself

What is the orthodox position or the sutta's position about the knowledge of reality itself, beyond any intervention of subjective factors? In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification. In sum, science help us to find the most useful ideas to use in our lives. Does this apply to Dhamma as well? Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation. Let me ask this with an example: We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts? Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it. EDIT: a few more details... Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them? Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth? Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works? After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete. Thanks for your time and patience! Kind regards!