Different physicists will have different preferred ways of explaining (interpreting) observations. Given the same observations, competing theories/interpretations/models will arise. How to choose between those that don't conflict with any of the evidence?

A famous scientist, Arthur Eddington, did a lot of work on what he called 'Fundamental Theory', an attempt at unifying everything. It went over 'like a submarine with screendoors'.

After I'd looked through the book for a couple of hours, I asked a seasoned quantum theoretician if there was anything particularly wrong about it. 'No'. Then why hadn't I heard of it, why didn't anyone take it seriously? 'Because they didn't like it.'