[m_for_monkey]

No, scientists are coming from the opposite direction. Observing things, then draw conclusions and connect the dots. Pseudosciences, like homeopathy are backwards. They pull "universal truths" out of thin air, like "Law of similars", and after that they don't mind even if experiments and reality doesn't support these theories.

[andreasvc]

The direction is not the opposite for science. In Popper's philosophy of science, you form a theory beforehand and specify how it can be falsified, only then you do the experiment. Otherwise you could obtain some data and provide an ad-hoc explanation, without knowing whether it really explains anything. It's related to the Texas sharpshooters fallacy, where you shoot a gun and only afterwards draw the bull's eye around your shots. Of course practice differs from this ideal, you do get inspired to make certain theories by data (context of discovery), but to make a proper theory you need to make predictions and specify what would disprove the theory (context of justification).

[Evbn]

You can't just discard observation-based hypothesis generation as irrelevant. It is a key part of the process.

[andreasvc]

I don't, I say it's part of the context of discovery (the way you come up with new hypotheses). On the other hand, you can't overlook the problem of induction, pure empiricism doesn't work. You need some theoretical framework before you can try to verify your hypotheses.

[wissler]

A true scientist seeks an integrated understanding. Newton related the objects that fall on Earth to the motion of the planets. One big sweeping idea for a wide range of phenomena. That's science.

[koide]

That's the science you like. There's plenty of science without sweeping ideas. There will likely always be.