Understanding No Longer Essential in Physics?

Let us face the following basic question which we pose to chatGPT (do it yourself)

• Is understanding the essence of science?

Here are answers in short form with my comment below:

Premodern: Yes. Science aimed at explanation: identifying entities, causes, and principles (from Aristotle to Newton to Maxwell).

Modern: No. Science is defined by predictive success. Reliable input → output mappings are sufficient, even without clear mechanism (solidified with quantum mechanics and Bohr).

Core distinction:

• Instrumental science: prediction, control, “does it work?”

• Intelligible science: explanation, meaning, “what is happening?”

Chemistry as stress test:

Chemistry needs intelligible structure (bonds, molecules), not just prediction, exposing tension with StdQM foundations.

Bottom line:

• Science can exist without deep understanding.

• But science without understanding becomes technology, not knowledge.

• The deepest crises in physics and chemistry arise precisely where prediction survives but understanding fails.

The next unavoidable question is:

• At what point does loss of understanding stop being pragmatic and become epistemic failure?

My comment: 

We are informed by chatGPT after consulting the literature that modern physics has given up the essential classical element of understanding as a result of the take over of fundamental physics by StdQM, and that this is manifested in a deep crisis of epistemic failure. 

RealQM is an alternative to StdQM keeping the ideals of premodern/classical physics of understanding as the essence of science.   

Let me add that understanding in physics typically has

• mathematical form expressing laws of physics
• quantitative content  

which describes RealQM but not so much StdQM.