The scientific method is an iterative process of coming up with hypotheses about the world and testing them. I see articles about new hypotheses in physics every few months on news feeds, including attempts to obsolete the Standard Model and/or General Relativity. So far, none of them have been able to (i) explain more phenomena than existing theories, (ii) predict new ones, and (iii) actually be testable.

Such breakthroughs are really rare. Until then, most physicists are stuck with twisting and twiddling with existing theories, hoping that the existing holes can't be adjusted anymore to let their newly discovered peg pass.

No, it's not. The scientific method is you adjust the theory to match the facts. How else would progress happen?

The whole point of science is that you continually revise and update your theory based on new facts you acquire. That was the big revolution in thinking that the Scientific Revolution brought, as opposed to the worshipping of "ancient, immutable knowledge" championed by religions and by the study of the classics.

I'm curious what's your beef here.

Supersimmetry is not part of the standard model though, right? It was one of the candidate extensions.

IANAP, but IIRC the standard model was born from the electroweak unification effort and in addition to giving some order to the particle zoo, it predicted the Higgs boson. I think that's a pretty important win.

The standard model actually does not have a whole lot of wiggle room. Suggesting that it has suggests to me that the person asserting it does not have the foggiest idea what they are talking about.