Elementary particles don't explain anything. Theories of elementary particles explain things. Don't confuse the map and the territory.
The person I was responding to clearly wasn't asking "what's the purpose of theories of the neutrino" but rather what was the purpose of the particles themselves.
"Elementary particles do have a purpose, they are for explaining a measurable physical phenomena."
Don't confuse what you think was said with what was said. I didn't say neutrinos were the explanation or that they were doing the explaining.
If you can explain the theory, without the neutrinos, then you have a new theory. The theory is itself used as an explanation of experimental results, and I'd argue that the actual theoretical explanation is carried out by humans for other humans to not confuse the theory map for explanation territory. Frankly, I also think the dogmatism and distinction are silly, but don't confuse what I said.
Once again, you are confusing a thing with a theory about the thing.
Please provide a theory about (explaining) a phenomena, which does not presuppose the existence of the things (not the theory and not the phenomena) used to explain it. I think it's going to be a boring tautology of an unfalsifiable theory.
The photo electric effect is a theory of energy emission of light interacting with a metal. Quantized photons and energy levels are things used in the theory to describe experimental results. If you accept the theory, you accept it's elements, it's things. If you want to build a new Photo Electric theory, it will probably also involve some things you propose existing.
Explain Beta decay using the standard model without presupposing neutrinos exist. Note that beta decay was observed and the theory about it (a different thing) were developed long before neutrinos were directly measured (but those things must exist for the theory to be true). In fact predicting the existence and properties of particles before their measurement based on theory is the basis of most particle physics.
You seem confused, because humans who propose theories give purpose to their elements, because by definition those theories (their explanation) cannot be true without the existence of those elements. You seem to want inanimate objects to have desire, which is dumb.
I don't understand why you are so aggressive to a layperson asking a question like this. They simply want to better understand what implications the existence of neutrinos has on our understanding of the world, what they actually do, etc. I doubt they were wanting some sort of philosophical understanding of a greater Purpose for neutrinos.
I'm very annoyed by teleology.