I did not simply argue that some correct things are useful. I pointed out that every example of usefulness you presented can be augmented beyond all recognition with a deeper understanding of what is actually going on.

Let me put it this way: when you write, "how were people were to start and put out fires for millennia..." the key word is "start": being satisfied with a method that works but provides no deep understanding is stagnation.

Ever seeking more useful methods without seeking to understand what is actually going on makes you an expert at whatever level of abstraction you're stuck on. Order-of-magnitude advancement comes by improving the abstraction.

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.

I would also pick the former, provided my number one choice was not practical (perhaps due to time or resource constraints). The number one choice is to devote time and effort to making the true theory practicable. But if you never seek a true theory, you will never face this choice.

ETA: I'll address:

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.

by saying that you are arguing against, and I am arguing for:

But things that are correct are usually rather useful, and things that are not correct are less so.