Lox

No theorist claims to be prescribing a system of rules, any more than Newton can be accused of prescribing a set of laws by which nature must operate.

However, newtons observations were an essential step in helping us understand the mechanics of nature.

A good analogy. The planets followed their courses and apples fell from trees quite happily before Newton came up with his laws just as traditional singers sang their songs and played their tunes before the musicoligists got hold of them. From "The Character of Physical Law" by Richard P. Feynman -

Newton was originally asked about his theory - 'But it doesn't mean anything - it doesn't tell us anything.'. He said 'It tells you how it moves. That should be enough. I have told you how it moves, not why.'.

Newton's laws describe what happens and allow us to predict what will happen but they don't help us understand why it happens.

If I come across a tune where the tonic is clearly A and the Fs and Cs are all sharp but the Gs are all natural I might wonder why it sounds so "right". It's Myxolydian! Ah, well, that explains everything. No it doesn't, it doesn't explain anything, it just sticks a label on it.

With a good understaanding of theory it is easy to handle unfamiliar or complex music.

I'm not that concerned with handling the unfamiliar or the complex, I'm more concerned with getting to grips with the familiar and the simple. We are told that Ddominant7 "resolves" Gmajor, that the F# "leads to" the G and the C "leads to" the B. What does that actually mean? Saying that it is a full close or a perfect cadence just labels it without explaining the subjective experience.

As a musician (of sorts), my experience tells me what sounds good; as a scientist, I want to know why and, so far, music theory doesn't seem to tell me that.