We do this much of the time in genetics, genomics, and neuroscience.
New technology;
Large set of samples;
Quantify x … x mRNAs, proteins, lipids, metabolites;
Estimate how units stick together (statistically or literally);
Develop a “theory” of what units and groups of units interact to account for and predict higher order phenotypes (risk of neurodegeneration; lifespan).
Data take precedence. Mini-theories of molecular and cellular causality are assembled with some basic brain power and yes—-a dollop of theory and priors—-on the back of a massive pool of well structured data.
Exploratory biology of this type is/was insulted using the terms “fishing” or “mere description” but with current high throughput and high content technologies should be considered research “trawling” and factory-level science; not a cottage industry of small labs. This new style of science can be highly effective in biology and in astronomy as we are learning from Webb.
But it bugs the hell out of some classically trained reductionists who demand that clear hypotheses should drive science forward.
Much of the progress in modern biology falls into this alternative almost hypothesis-free style. I would say “story-free” style of science. Too damn many story-tellers.