In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc.
Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns.
Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there.
But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest.
> maybe. what is it?
Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.