"All these challenges arise because of physics’ adherence to reductive unification. Admittedly, the method has a distinguished pedigree. During my PhD and early career in the 1990s, it was all the rage among theorists, and the fiendishly complex mathematics of string theory was its apogee. But none of our top-down efforts seem to be yielding fruit. One of the difficulties of trying to get at underlying principles is that it requires us to make a lot of theoretical presuppositions, any one of which could end up being wrong."
"Instead, many of us have switched from the old top-down style of working to a more humble, bottom-up approach. Instead of trying to drill down to the bedrock by coming up with a grand theory and testing it, now we’re just looking for any hints in the experimental data, and working bit by bit from there."
In practice, both ways to look at the evidence are needed. And in pure science, sometimes a lot has to be done in many different directions before some of non-obvious directions bear fruits. One of big dangers is inventing the experiments that will surely "confirm." The big insights come also when something expected by the most is not confirmed, like the famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper...
Without these experiments Einstein wouldn't be able to invent General Relativity. The popular culture talks too much about Einstein but sadly doesn't understand and hardly even knows Michelson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson
His experiment, from the end of the 19th century, is also the basis of the LIGO experiments that just recently confirmed gravitational waves:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo
"Although much more sophisticated, at their cores, LIGO's interferometers are fundamentally Michelson Interferometers, a device invented in the 1880's."
The 1880's experiments didn't "confirm" what was "expected" but they are one of the most impressive science success stories, looking from what we know now.
Of course, LIGO itself is a technological marvel compared to what was possible in 1880, and we should celebrate all the advanced experiments where our reach extends. Not "confirming" expected can be even much bigger story, even if it disappoints those whose "pet" "expected" theory is not confirmed.