[iso1337]

My take was that he is using a slightly different definition of "chance" or "trial and error" than what is perhaps common. I don't quite grasp his definition enough to be able to do it justice.

I don't know enough about geology to be able to comment intelligently on your digging holes in the ground point. However, from my own background in biology research, a lot of what he writes strikes true with some caveats.

Biological systems are highly complex, and a lot of reductionist basic research work does seem to be driven by understanding along the forms of "I have a mental model of this subsystem, if I do X, then I expect Y." However, a lot is also discovered via his "convexity" principles (which I agree most laypeople would label as "trial and error"). Biologists often discover functions by randomly mutating billions or trillions of individual microbes, screening for interesting phenotypes, and then sequencing to discover the supposedly causal mutations.

Where the understanding approach really breaks down is in engineering systems -- which I believe requires an even higher level of understanding than the qualitative mental models bandied about in biology. We simply don't understand enough to be able to develop most drugs with that sort of rational approach, so reducing costs per attempt (while keeping all else equal, which is something often overlooked) would be beneficial. Unfortunately, things in the industry appear to be heading the other direction.