I think you make a fair point, but also remember: new paradigms don't necessarily require confusing / contradictory observations. You could have the simple idea of "what if gravity is an inertial force?" at any period in time and work out the mathematics of this. It would make theoretical predictions which could then be falsified, but then again, who would take it seriously enough to test it if it was maybe say 1850 and not 1899.

A better example is maybe Maxwell's laws. Maxwell wasn't inventing a theory to try and explain confusing results, he was unifying a chaotic, empirical laws from existing experiments. That may be a cleaner example. That knowledge compression into satisfying theoretical framework is likely what is attractive.

You can potentially ask the same thing about like you say -- general relativity / quantum gravity but also likely plenty of other areas that may be like this today. Again going outside my particular area of expertise: standard model physics is in a large important sense empirical; lots of values and numbers that are simply unmotivated by theory or where we don't have a good way to make a principled theoretical choice. That could be a place where these models are able to help.

But right now: I doubt it. This is what everyone is working furiously on right now. How do you close a "science" verification loop? In principle this should be easy right: you have ideation (exploration, sampling with ~high temperature maybe as an analogue) and you have verification (which of these ideas are good) which amounts to rejection sampling in idea space. You have to have a sampler that is good at picking _good_ ideas for efficiency sake and you need a relatively fast and reliable verification step of "is this idea good and worth continuing to explore". But I may oversimplify