>>11083717Sure.
If you know what 2 is, and you know what 4 is, you should be able to predict with absolute certainty that 2+2=4, implying that you understand what you're working with at a root level.
If I know what atoms and molecules are, but I can't predict from my understanding of both or either why life behaves the way that it does, then it implies that I don't have a root level understanding of the building blocks. If I can't predict the emergent properties of combinations of fundamental building blocks, it means I don't fully understand the building blocks.
Does that matter? No.
We trust mathematical papers more than we do nutritional or sociology papers because anyone with the right knowledge can or should be able reproduce the results of a study or formula. It's not science if you aren't building a model of reality or component of reality that lacks reproducible predictive power. Some science has to work from the top down, chipping down into layers that exist already in reality, and others can start from the bottom up (computer sciences), building new stuff on top of the stable old stuff.
