(1) We hold some truths to be self-evident.
We also hold truth to be of utmost importance, and in many cases, the sole divider between right and wrong; for, certainly, an action that bases itself on truth will always be better than the alternative.
Some time ago, we knew it was undoubtedly true that the sun revolved around the earth; then Copernicus and Galilei came along, and after ignoring the former and persecuting the latter, we reconsidered.
Later we knew that Newton's laws of motion are undoubtedly true; and even when evidence piled in to the contrary, we stood by our truth with courage and conviction; until a better explanation was published.
Today, there are many things which, yet again, we hold undoubtedly true.
Perhaps, only perhaps, by now we should know better? (2) As grave as the problem is with scientific theory, at least theories include ways to verify or disprove them.
It becomes much more subtle when the assertion is untestable - for what will you say of the claim that Ali was the chosen successor of Muhammad, and the true infallible voice of God? Some believe it undoubtedly true; others undoubtedly false; and both camps are willing to kill for their truth, as the Shi'i-Sunni wars and millions of corpses illustrate.
Some questions beg to be asked - how many victories or defeats would it take to prove one claim true and the other false? And, of what practical consequence is the difference? (3) The truth about truth is, truth is overrated.
If we verified something to be true, it will most likely remain so - until the next advance in science disproves it; if we cannot verify it, then the opposite claim has just as much merit.
And if unverified truth cannot be proven; and verified truth can (and without a doubt, will someday) be disproven; perhaps truth is not a very useful criterion.
Perhaps utility is much more consequential.
Does it matter that Newton was proven wrong when you use his formulas to calculate a vehicle's breaking distance, or the maximum load of a bridge? Is it important to consider that the earth is spherical to measure the square footage of a home? Or perhaps, the more important rule is to use the best tool for the job at hand, whether it is true in general, or not.
And if it works, IT WORKS! A criterion that is simple, objective, practical, and easily verifiable, as any criterion should be.
(4) There are three lessons we can learn from this.
First and foremost, Tolerance.
If the Christian believes our savior has already come once and died for our sins, and the Jew believes our Messiah is yet to come, both are equally justified in their belief; it is useful to them, and therefore good; and neither belief should be argued as true, forced upon the disbeliever, or institutionalized by any public authority.
The reason arguments about religion so often turn sour is that there is no way whatsoever to verify that one's belief is true; and therefore the only argument to be made is that the other's belief is false; thus by necessity, all arguments will always be negative, offensive, and do nothing to disprove the other's claim (since it was unverifiable to begin with).
Second, Utility.
If one theory is verified, and the other proven false, it tells us nothing of the usefulness of one or the other for the task at hand; so while the quest to explain and predict all that is known is the very definition of theoretical science, it is not something that we, the non-theoreticians, should concern ourselves with.
We can only compare knowledge based on its utility to us, for specific tasks - by applicability, usefulness, and rate of success.
Third, Limits.
It is unlikely that any knowledge be universally applicable; most actionable models have narrow, well-defined scopes of efficacy.
And within these scopes, they have specific, well-defined performance expectations - for engineering, perhaps accuracy to the 10th decimal; for stock-trading, perhaps anything above 51%.
Practical utility will only be derived as long as these limits are enforced constantly; which requires the performance expectations, the evaluation period and the abandonment criteria to be defined in advance; otherwise the model cannot be verified to work.
It is my strong conviction that, a transition from criteria of truth to criteria of utility holds tremendous potential for every one of us; and even more so, for all of us living together as a large diverse community.
If only we spent less time bickering about truth and more time applying useful knowledge - how much more could we achieve.