[a4isms]

Theory (almost) always precedes evidence, and coming up with a novel, biologically-plausible explanation for a common ailment is absolutely a valid, useful scientific contribution.

This is the case in physics and astronomy. People make predictions that are not only untested, but we have to invent equipment to test them.

One of the great early accomplishments in science was when astronomers, observing our Sun, noted an unknown yellow spectral line signature. In 1868, Norman Lockyer predicted that it must be created by a hitherto unknown element, which he named “Helium” after the Greek Titan of the Sun, Helios.

In 1895, two Swedish chemists detected helium in ore samples here on Earth, and in the great tradition of the scientific method, we had a theory, a prediction, and a confirmation of the theory by test.

http://braythwayt.com/2017/12/29/crown.html

[naasking]

I'm not sure it's always the case that theory precedes evidence, even in physics. We still have loads of evidence that theory does not explain, dark matter, dark energy and superconductivity being the most well known. Theory is often devised to explain something weird or unexpected that experimentalists observe.

[a4isms]

Upon reflection, you’re making an excellent point!

Einstein predicted things we’re still confirming empirically, but then again, he started by asking himself how the speed of light could be constant for every observer, which was the result of an experiment that failed to confirm a different theory.

[naasking]

Science is an ouroboros of experiment and theory!