You are resisting the evidence that your argument is circular.
You think "understanding" is independent of "prediction and control"...but just look at the current argument about "not understanding
physics" if the speed of neutrinos has exceeded what as predicted
as an upper limit.
You talk of "theory" as though it reflected some sort of "underlying reality
"....but just look at (say) Clark-Maxwell's wave equations which are still extensively used in predicting the behaviour of electromagnetism despite the fact that they require a
luminiferous ether" as an elastic medium for their
". (Maxwell derived his equations from the assumption of "the ether" later to be abondoned)
You talk of a "phenomenon
" as though it were independent of the particular action of observers despite Heisenberg's adage
"We never observe observe the world, only the results of our action
Lastly you talk of "refining measurement
" as though it were also observer independent, when any elementary statistics textbook points out that the first level of measurement is "nominal"
(linguistic naming), which underpins all other levels (ordinal, interval, ratio).
What we call "science" proceeds pragmatically not dogmatically. Such pragmatism is often based on mathematical elegance and economy of prediction rather than "understanding". Einstein's genius lay in his selection of economic mathematical axioms which encompassed and extended previous models and predicted "new data" (i.e directing nominal
activity)...not in his "understanding of reality"...for as he said himself:
"reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one".