As a scientific professional (an applied mathematician), this seems to me clearly nonsensical – there are at least three widely accepted kinds of truth not derived from the scientific method:
Mathematical truthsMathematical truths, for example, are proved using mathematical techniques, not experimental ones:
These mathematical truths are assumed before science even begins – in interpreting these stroboscopic observations of a bouncing ball, for example, we assume certain mathematically-proved properties of parabolas:
Metaphysical truthsFrom Plato onwards, metaphysical truths have been proved using philosophical arguments. Many metaphysical truths are also assumed by science – that's what philosophy of science is about.
Ethical truthsA fundamental principle of ethics is that "is" does not imply "ought" – more formally, modal operators of obligation have no introduction rule. Consequently, systems of ethics need at least one axiom (such as Kant's categorical imperative) as a starting point for ethical arguments.
Again, we are outside of the scientific method, and again, science must use these truths – in particular, in discussions of whether scientific discoveries should or should not be used. Such debates may use scientific facts (and mathematical ones), but they must also use ethical principles and ethical arguments.