The usual opinion among many scientists and science-based educators, developing and teaching logical, mathematical and scientific methods is that the exact science deals with the understanding of nature. I defend the conviction that the exact science does not deal with and must not deal with the understanding of nature (physis), because exact scientists themselves construct their objects of investigation, which are idealizations, not the reality itself. In the exact science an object must be adapted to a priori cognition and the aim of the scientist in the physical-mathematical sciences is discovering the 'laws of nature' (objective or scientific laws formulated mathematically and confirmed experimentally or quasi-experimentally), getting the true picture about the real phenomena does not belong to this aim. We must understand that the exact science has its premises and limits which come from the preconditions and specific character of the exact science. The exact science deals with idealizations only and because of that cannot grasp the reality in all its complexity and diversity. And it is normal for the exact science. But to avoid the misunderstanding or even the myth about science we must understand how and why these idealizations have been created and under which conditions they are valid. We must not take them as the foundation of reality on which all the objectively existing rests. The reality is inexhaustible and there are many real, not illusory aspects that do not result from this foundation and are not in accordance with it. The exact science cannot move further than the idealizations. The understanding of the real world "as it is" is possible only beyond the idealizations. We all know from our experience of living in everyday world, that such characteristics of nature and human society as instability, chance, irreversibility, unpredictability, historical time, emergence of novel appearances, etc. are real, not illusory. The scientists in the physical-mathematical sciences must not eliminate the phenomena the model had no need to take into account. These phenomena have to be indicated and understood outside the exact science (beyond the idealizations). Therefore, the way to the understanding of nature (and human society) for scientists lies in the co-operation between the exact science and the non-exact sciences (from classical biology to humanities).