The why is sooo important for the how- like with chambering blocks, we all learn how at the very beginning but learning why they're chambered the way they are is what really gives new life and intent to those seemingly unimportant chambering movementsOk, I see your point, fair enough.
My subtle point was this, where I see no difference (set aside "homework", as for me working yourself, is something a serious student of anything would do - wether beeing told to or not)
In physics class, we are taught HOW we can DESCRIBE the physical interactions, by timeless laws and intial conditions. The WHY is simply - beacuse it's was the scientific process led us. For thoose seeking deeper understnadings and want to expand, you are on your own [open problem].
In MA, we are taught HOW do to thins. The WHY is OFTEN - because this is our style, sometimes you can can an more explanation but not necessarily a unique one, but an arbitrary one. So if you seek the constructing principles more deeper, you are again on your own [open problem as well? or?].
This is how I feel. But I see nothing wrong with! I just think it is similar to anything else. I am rarely satisfied by the superfical HOWs.