“How can we know it’s more accurate to state “matter is a distortion in space” than “matter distorts space”?”
Both statements are basically equivalent when it comes to describing a certain set of observations (gravity bending light, or relativistic effects near massive objects, for example), but saying “matter distorts space”, while explaining those observations, leaves us with more questions, such as “how does matter distort space?”, which is a question that isn’t easily answered.
If instead we look at matter as the actual distortion in space instead of something causing the distortion, it leads to different questions, ones that we can actually answer. For example, we would instead ask “why is space distorted such that it appears to us as matter?” and that question can be easily answered... space is distorted because it is a wave medium and the manner in which it is distorted is governed by the same wave mechanics that govern all wave mediums.
I was hoping for more than fanciful speculation.
The problem here is that those interpreting scientific literature and scientists themselves—and in fact many across academia—often believe the falsehood that man’s language can create or reinvent reality when its capacities are limited to describing discovered reality.