> You're not really a scientist if you create something that works and you don't really know why. According to your logic, the only true "science" is mathemati

> You're not really a scientist if you create something that works and you don't really know why. According to your logic, the only true "science" is mathematics. If you test the workings of your "creation" using scientific method, you're still a scientist. Scientific method is also about testing your claims empirically, and it has been successfully applied for more than a century to study of biological organisms, climate, and other complex systems that we do not "really" understand. Not to berate understanding of underlying mechanism which is always preferable, just to point out that there is more than one way to skin the cat.