Basically ... yes. This is one of my arguments about the scientific method in general. You start with something you can't really explain, that seems to match

Basically ... yes. This is one of my arguments about the scientific method in general. You start with something you can't really explain, that seems to match data a bit better than the previous theory. You keep refining it, and eventually someone (often someone else) derives an insight from this work. I note this, as most of the popularizations of solar system astronomical history I'd seen, generally derided epicycles as a bad thing. They weren't. They were a sort of perturbation theory. One that generated other problems. But still did a somewhat better job than the (at the time) accepted theory.