On that premise, I am also qualified to comment on what you care about.

Yes, but there are also other factors at play, such as you being an adolescent, argumentative idiot who usually doesn't understand the half of what he is talking about.

Your primary debate tactic is to deflect what an opponent says by picking out certain words and attacking their terminology

No, my primary debate tactic is the law of reason. The law of reason says that science is an ideology, because it follows the fundamental principles of ideology. It makes conclusions about the nature of being and/or the universe itself and it supports those ideological principles through the worship and/or application of a god value (i.e. evidence).

Conversely, you have no understanding of the law of reason. You simply believe something and then stick your fingers in your ears when it gets pulled apart by someone else.

I seem to remember explaining to you how and why science can never guarantee anything in the present moment. It takes measurements which fall into the past as soon as they are obtained. Hence, there is always the possibility that something (or everything) has changed in the timeframe between something being "evidenced" and the present moment.

Further to that, there is another criticism to be made about material evidence, which is that it can only be interpreted through the lens of the dominant ideology. That is, people are restricted from obtaining more knowledge by their very own biases in the present. The difficulty theories like natural selection and relativity had while in their infancy illustrates this, but even the initial scoffing scientists did when presented with those theories only scratches the surface of the problem.

If a school of fish live in a pond in your back garden and notice ripples on the water every time it rains they might eventually try to figure out why they see ripples. If they get really clever they might take measurements of the ripples to try to figure out what is going on. But even that ideology is going to leave them perilously short of ever figuring out why it rains. Like the fish, people are boxed in by both their physical environment and their cognitive biases. Measuring the ripples is unequivocally a better idea than worshipping the almighty ripple god, but it's still fairly shit as a serious method of discovering what is going on.