Not to a scientist. The How is the Why. Because a science works from phenomenology, that which we see and touch and can measure, the only tangible thing is the How.

Put another way: the "how" of a subject is scientific and objective, based on observation and experiement; the "why" of a subject is personal and unobjective, based on speculation and ill defined terms.

Example: Mass. We know how it's created and destroyed, how it moves, and how we interact with it. Now ask why it's created, why it's destroyed and why it moves... you can come up with a million reasons why but none of them are testable, none objective, and thus to a scientist none "real".

Try it: take any statement in physics that uses "why" and replace with "how"... you'll see that asking "why" doesn't quite stack up to asking "how":

Why is the sky blue? (Because god intended it that way?)
How is the sky blue? (By the refraction of light from the atmosphere)

Why do the planets revolve around the sun? (Because they felt like dancing?)
How do the planets revolve around the sun? (The Sun's gravity forces the planets into ellipses)


Do you see? "Why" seemingly anthropomorphizes a statement, makes it sound like the object in question has reason and motivation and will and thus does something for a reason. "How" is merely a descriptive statement that ask us pay attention to what we can see instead of the reason for that movement.