〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

I think the hierarchy is not as gray as you are purposing. i.e. it's fair to say that the kinetic theory of gases talks a bout more 'fundamental' aspects, and statistical mech connects the bridge I don't see how the magnetoresistance example relates being 'fundamental '

just because something is useful and affects our everyday life doesn't mean that it's more fundamental

Maybe it's linguistics, I am just questioning "fundamental" being firmly pinned to the study of the most elementary constituents of matter known to date. Surely, it is important, but quarks and gluons will not help me solve problems about topological spin current, will they?

If you don't like "fundamental" being used as the technical term for whatever the Standard Model + general relativity are trying to do, please make up a less loaded term and popularize it. Until that replacement catches on, people will use "fundamental".

Well, that then might be a good time indeed, as @skdh argues, to step back and think what it is they are trying to do. I don't know any examples of someone setting out (literally) to discover the "fundamental laws of the universe" and succeeding.

are you purposing that science is the endeavor of pursuing what's already successfully been done? you could have said to Newton 'i don't recall any stories of anyone successfully figuring out how the moon goes goes round the earth' that's not a very good argument..

"How the Moon goes round the Earth" is a reasinably well defined problem.

so are 'why do hadrons form?' , 'what is dark matter?' .. If you want a success story about discovering a new fundamental law look at the SM gauge group