'Correctness' in theories is a scalar rather than a binary quality. Phlogiston theory is less correct (and less useful) than chemistry, but it's more correct--and more useful!--than the theory of elements. The fact that the modern scientific theories you list are better than their precursors, does not mean their precursors were useless.

You have a false dichotomy going here. If you know of someone who "knows how human cognition works on all scales", or even just a theory of cognition as powerful as Newton's theory of mechanics is in its domain, then please, link! But if such a theory existed, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. A strong theory of cognition will descend from a series of lesser theories of cognition, of which control theory is one step.

Unless you have a better theory, or a convincing reason to claim that "no-theory" is better than control theory, you're in the position of an elementalist arguing that phlogiston theory should be ignored because it can't explain heat generated by friction--while ignoring the fact that while imperfect, phlogiston theory is strictly superior to elemental theory or "no-theory".

As best I can tell, you agree that what I said is true, but nonetheless dispute the conclusion... and you do so by providing evidence that supports my argument.

That's kind of confusing.

What I said was:

One of the most frustrating things about dealing with LW is the consistent confusion by certain parties between the terms "correct" and "useful".

And you gave an argument that some correct things are useful. Bravo.

However, you did not dispute the part where "useful" almost always comes before "correct"... thereby demonstrating precisely the confusion I posted about.

Useful and correct are not the same, and optimizing for correctness does not necessarily optimize usefulness, nor vice versa. That which is useful can be made correct, but that which is merely correct may be profoundly non-useful.

However, given a choice between a procedure which is useful to my goals (but whose "theory" is profoundly false), or a true theory which has not yet been reduced to practice, then, all else about these two pieces of information being equal, I'm probably going to pick the former -- as would most rational beings.

(To the extent you would pick the latter, you likely hold an irrational bias... which would also explain the fanboy outrage and downvotes that my comments on this subject usually provoke here.)

You still don't get it. Correct beliefs don't spring full-grown from the forehead of Omega - they come from observations. And to get observations, you have to be doing something... most likely, something useful.

That's why your math is wrong for observed history - humans nearly always get "useful" first, then "correct".

Or to put it another way, in theory you can get to practice from theory, but in practice, you almost never do.

the space of correct beliefs is much smaller than the space of all beliefs, and in particular smaller than the space of incorrect beliefs.

I'm not sure I'd grant that unless you can show it mathematically. It seems to me there are infinite beliefs of all sorts, and I'm not sure how their orders compare.

Which is it?

Both. Over the course of history:

Useful things -> mostly not true theories.

True theory -> usually useful, but mostly first preceded by useful w/untrue theory.