That's how science is supposed to work. But in my 50+ years as a scientist I have observed many attempts to make observations fit existing theories. It isn't a deliberate attempt to distort "facts" but just the easy way to do things. Once you have committed time to supporting a particular idea you just think that way. The idea has a sort of inertia and it is hard to discard it, start over and look for an entirely new explanation. Especially if you associate with a group of people who share the same ideas. Few people are happy about discarding a lifetime's work and beliefs and starting over from scratch. So they resist change.
And those new to science (or just outside observers) are often enamored by all of the exciting ideas they are learning and rarely stop to ask if there are better ideas, or even if what they are being taught is correct. Remember "cold fusion?"
The Higgs boson is a classic example of this. It isn't something that was discovered by accident during observations of the real world. It's existence was predicted by the latest version of the Standard Model. Then an experiment was designed to find what they were looking for in accordance with the predictions of the theory. After sifting through huge amounts of data something was found (surprise!) that corresponded with what the researchers were looking for. This sort of "science" is always suspicious. Religious fundamentalists do this all the time trying to make observations of the real world fit into their preconceived beliefs.
Don't get me wrong. Something was observed. But was it the thing predicted by the theory or something else totally unrelated that just happened to look like the predicted results? The people who have spent much of their lives searching for the Higgs boson really aren't asking this question, but they should.
Hypothesis can guide us in looking for answers. Einstein's prediction of gravity bending the path of light is an excellent example. But more often than not preconceived ideas just lead us astray, looking for the wrong answers.
So-called scientists often mistake their theories and "laws" for reality. Theories exist in our minds, reality exists outside our minds. Because of the imperfections in our minds and measuring instruments we can never fully understand reality. For example, the best we can do is say a real world object has such-and-such dimensions with some degree of measurement error.
The difference between science and religion is that religion involves absolute certainty and science can never have absolute certainty. Personally, I find it pretty ridiculous to think that a bunch of neo-apes, isolated on an insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy among countless other galaxies in a perhaps infinite universe, can understand it all. "Theories of everything" are nonsense!
Some humility is needed here. The Big Bang Theory and the Standard Model fail to explain a few very important things. Gravity, expansion of the universe, dark matter and a few other puzzles come to mind. Seems to me we are not even close to figuring it all out.
Here are a few other simpler puzzles:
What is "G" - the gravitational constant. Or, better still, why is there a gravitational constant, and is it really constant? If it isn't, virtually all of cosmological theory gets flushed down the toilet.
Why does it appear that momentum is not conserved in the interaction of electrons and positrons? In other words, why do we need imaginary particles to explain things (Feynman diagrams)? Isn't there a simpler answer?
Why does it take longer than theory predicts for electrons and positrons to spin together under the influence of their opposite electrostatic charges (positronium) and annihilate? This question came up in the 1930s and hasn't been answered. In fact, I have searched for experiments trying to answer this question and have found none in the last 50 years. The answer to this question will tell us far more about the nature of the universe than searches for hypothetical particles.
How can a photon be it's own antiparticle?
Why don't we see equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe? Yes, I know there are all sorts of speculative hypotheses about this, but there really aren't any answers. No proof.
Until we have a repeatable and verifiable proof of explanations for these mysteries we really won't know much about particle physics and cosmology.