From Feynman's cargo cult analogy:
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land.
What is the point of this comparison? He is trying to make more than one point in this address, but the point here is this:
So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential
Following the forms, in itself shows NO understanding. These cult guys would make imitation headphones out of coconuts, etc. thinking that was what it took to make planes come land on their island, bringing all kinds of desired material goods with them. They thought the significance was in the form, and had no clue about the substance of how planes operate, why they land where they do, etc.
What is the "essential something" that is missing? How do you extract one from cargo cult thinking? Feynman suggests it is virtually impossible:
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones.
And that's why I don't think it's likely that we can communicate. We have been through this dozens of times, but your understanding, such as it is, never changes. We have fundamentally different understandings of what the essential features of physics theories are. The same goes for what scientific understanding is and, for that matter, even what science is. I don't think you agree with Feynman at all. You just impute your own idiosyncratic premises to Feynman, and then think he must be saying what you want him to say.