Got you, but I am unsure if moving to the next question isn't a success as well. You understood a thing and move on, rinse and repeat.
Or: consider where science would be had it operated under your proposed maxime for the past 3 centuries.
Thw piano string produces a higer torque because it is shorter does not answer you why it is shorter or how waves travel exactly within it, but it sure as hell would be required knowledge to start researching beyond that first observation.
> The weak force is short range because it's field is stiffer.
May seem like a simple redirection that could go on forever, but we learned that fields can be stiffer, which probably wasn't all that clear. Now we can observe all other forces and look how their fields vary in terms of stiffness — a parameter we might not have thought about before. And by looking in those other places we might find a clue on how to shape an experiment that allows us to vary the stiffness. That could already have useful applications, but also lead to answering the question why some forces have stiffer fields than others.
Not sure I get this because we have no deeper understanding using the example I gave.
I.e. The weak force is short range because it's field is stiffer -> the weak force's field is stiffer because it is more oblong -> the weak force's field is more oblong because it has more sparkles -> it has more sparkles because it ha slower mushiness -> it has more mushiness because ...etc.
We haven't gained anything in that sequence.
I don't think we can answer fundamental questions like this. The fine structure constant is the value it is because without that value we can't have a universe like this. Maybe in some multiverse system the physical laws and constants we know are fluid and can take different values in different universes but in our universe simply because of observation selection effects they can only be what they are.