It's true that the scientists themselves have bias. I don't this it's correct to say though that the scientific method seeks truth per se, although I know many scientists say that when philosophising. It describes a way go gain knowledge which seems correct, and more importantly a way to verify and challenge that, based on what is observable and testable. General theories are laws become laws only by lack of refuting evidence. In my opinion this makes calling them "truth" dubious.
I really liked the TED talk with Rupert Sheldrake when I saw it first a while ago, he makes some great points. I'd be more skeptical of Graham Hancock and ancient knowledge stuff, it's so hard to know things well. In my observation, bias and jumping to conclusions is rife there. I wouldn't want to conflate then, Hancock is a serious scientist, but this Ancient Aliens Debunked movie is very funny and worth watching
But the EU stuff is really out there and highly contentious. I don't believe they employ the scientific method, funny enough it seems like more of a belief system than a branch of science. Theories of everything are like alchemy. Here's an interesting take on them: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
I agree wholeheartedly on the science ever being a truth or law. I just wanted to use a more textbook definition than my personal one. I enjoy watching most of Sheldrake's talks. I know Graham has aligned himself with some oddballs, but personally the only message I see from him really pushing is that humans are far older than we think we are and showing evidence of that. That vice article is some straight propaganda written by someone who never has watched the videos of experiments or read the data they and others supporting the theory put out. Not everything is sound with it, but the fact remains plasma and electromagnetism do play a much bigger part in this than we are usually told. I have dug into a lot of older theories and this is really old think coming back with more modern experiments and data to support it but as before fraught with contention.
I think Graham claims and infers a lot more than that, but I kind of like his style anyway. I think a lot of us were told in a general way that people long ago were very primitive and stupid and I like things that challenge this notion, it's clearly quite wrong and I believe the agenda there is largely to support "enlightenment" ideas without challenge.
I'll look into EU more, I guess I'm not well read up on it enough to say more. I will say though (it's obvious) that old / ancient knowledge is not correct by virtue of it's age or reverence by peoples or cultures in which it was developed. If you don't let the research guide you then bias is baked into the results. But that mightn't apply here!
In any case thanks for putting me on to EU, regardless of what it turns out to be 😁