 Still, even if the craftsman is capable of a universal judgment about the cause of disease, we ought not to conclude that there is no difference between technê and epistêmê, even in the secondary sense. We can take our cue from the kind of accuracy Aristotle says is to be expected in the study of the supreme good. In Nicomachean Ethics I 3, he says that it is political science (politikê epistêmê) which pursues this study (1094b1). Since there is disagreement and error surrounding the topic of the good, we must be content, concerning such a subject and relying on similar premises, to show the truth roughly and in outline. Given a subject and premises that hold for the most part (hôs epi to polu) similar conclusions will follow. He adds that it is the mark of an educated person to seek the amount of accuracy (takribes) that the nature of the subject matter permits (1094b20–25). Later in Book I, Aristotle returns to the problem of the accuracy appropriate to different undertakings; one must seek accuracy (akribeian) according to each subject matter and to the degree that is appropriate to the method for investigating it. He illustrates this problem by comparing geometry with carpentry. Both seek (epizêtousi) the right angle, the latter insofar as it is useful for his product and the former as to what it is and its properties, since he is looking for the truth (1098a25–30). Here Aristotle suggests the notion of practical accuracy, clearly distinct from mathematical accuracy, is possibly distinct from the accuracy of the study of nature. After all, the accuracy needed for production might also fall short of the standard required by the study of nature, even when this study is epistêmê in the secondary sense. Finally, nothing in the last distinction undermines the claim that technê is clearly distinct from epistêmê in the strict sense. The former is confined to the world of contingencies; the domain of the latter is what is necessary.