It's a matter of practicality too. A scientific experiment of any kind can only in full honestly provide a set of results given a set of conditions. No matter h

It's a matter of practicality too. A scientific experiment of any kind can only in full honestly provide a set of results given a set of conditions. No matter how well your theory may fit the existing data, fundamentally your data may simply be responding to some other mechanism you're not aware of or not measuring. There is a huge amount of effort required to say why something works with certainty. Usually to get there requires many years of experience with a new surprising result. Which requires publishing lots of results before understanding the mechanism. If you refuse to believe anything that isn't figured out from first principles is true... I mean... I have a condition and if someone told me a higher percentage of patients on a new drug did well than on the one I use, do I care if they can tell me exactly why? Not in the slightest. I will wait a year or two to see if side-effects crop up and ideally see the results confirmed, but I'm not going to not get a treatment likely to help just because they don't know how exactly how it works. I think it's good practice to assume the results of a paper are accurate, even if you give no credence to the interpretation.