Exactly, and I tend to agree with him. I argued some time ago here that a paper should take some time to try to explain why its results are happening, at least from a reasonable hypothesis (people didn't seem to agree). An experiment (even a simple one) starts from a null hypothesis and tries to disprove it. However, most of what we see coming out of "scientific" papers is basically just engineering, I guess?: we put all of these things together in some way (out of pure guess and/or preference bias) and these results happened. We don't know why, good luck figuring it out. Here is one example where it works (don't ask where it doesn't; we intentionally kept those out).
And while I obviously value very much the engineering advances we have seen, the science is still lacking, because not enough people are trying to understand why these things are happening. Although engineering advances are important and valuable, I don't understand exactly why people try so hard to call themselves scientists if they are basically skipping the scientific process entirely.