"Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science." One of the points I expected when she was showing the graph of predictions and how they shift as we

"Random hypotheses (here particles) are not good science." One of the points I expected when she was showing the graph of predictions and how they shift as we get more data is that while individual theorists may be making testable predictions, the sum total of the field and all the various predictions on offer ends up combining to produce a prediction of essentially everything. The net result is that you don't get much more than that out of the whole process. That's not 100% true; there is still an aspect of exploring what the math landscape permits. But it's much closer to 100% true than we should be comfortable with. Especially with the repeated history, the very repeated history, of some specific hypothesis being falsified (such as SUSY) and the reaction being to just move the goalposts. Again, individually, each such action may be justified, but taken as a collection of all of them, it becomes difficult to distinguish from the way that you can easily justify breaking the world into earth/air/water/fire elements; every time an observation seems to contradict a previous theory you just adjust the 4 elements theory to fit. It's the same basic procedure that kept such theories aloft for centuries when we now easily recognize them as just absolute garbage. Not just because we have better theories, but because when approached with a modern scientific mindset such things can be annihilated easily, being obviously wrong and false even if you don't have a better theory immediately on hand to replace it.