> The implicit argument is that one can't engineer something one doesn't understand.

Isn't that easy to debunk?

I'd be hard pressed to implement an algorithm that can control a double-jointed inverted pendulum without reading up on control theory again.

But I can instead read up on neural networks and implement one that can be trained to control the pendulum.

For a more advanced example, I would never be able implement speech recognition explicitly by writing a regular program. But I could probably implement a passable one using neural networks and lots of training material.

How is this not "engineer something one doesn't understand"?