> We only need to evaluate what is practically useful.
As simple as this may seem, a few problematic points:
- who decides who gets included in "we"?
- who decides what "evaluate" is composed of?
- who decides what is practical, and useful?
- there is an implicit dimension of Time: for example, many things were initially categorized as useful, but then it can turn out to be a lot more complicated (Thalidomide, fossil fuels, arguably democracy & journalism (at least as they are practised, which seems to be fairly immutable))
Of course, these issues can be easily dismissed ("pedantic!"), but that doesn't make them go away.
> At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science.
Another problem we have is language (and various other things, semantics, semiotics, etc) - in this example, a reader could easily take away a few not necessarily correct beliefs from the way you've worded it:
- it could be (very poorly) interpreted to mean science does only this (and nothing else)
- it could be interpreted to mean science alone does this
- it could be interpreted to mean that the output of science (what actually works in the real world) is comprehensive, as in "all that works has been discovered by science - and if it isn't, science would (or will) find it"
- it could be interpreted to mean that science alone is able to produce accuracy, truth, and verification
- it could be interpreted to mean (or, a person may just not consider) that "what works" is not necessarily a constant over time (see: Thalidomide, fossil fuels)
To be clear, I'm not saying you're asserting these things, I'm just pointing out that language is extremely ambiguous and can be misleading.