The first option might be true, no real way to measure it and that's sort of it, no explanation for all the other stuff going on. The second option is a little more complex, it requires an extra construct to make it work. And apparently when we do the math and work out this construct, it exactly maps to things we can measure in reality, that were not explained by the other simpler option.
So it's not backwards because it's simply the first full match in a depth first search through the possible realities that follow from this wave function theory.
In a Physics degree, the order is quite historical. Like one full course for the three first next items, and all the other together. I'm not sure if there is a book with all of them, you probably need 4 or 5 books.
1) Non-Quantum Non-Relativistic Electromagnetism
2) Quantum Non-Relativistic Electromagnetism
3) Non-Quantum Relativistic Electromagnetism
4) Quantum Relativistic Electromagnetism
5) By the way, you can interpret the Quantum Relativistic Electromagnetism as a U(1) symmetry. (my comment)
6) It looks like a good idea. Let's use other groups to explain other known forces: the weak and strong force. (The G...GP comment about SU(2) and SU(3).)
7) ???
[See note 1]
For some reason, popular science articles love to show something almost magical and prefer to present something like the "5)". It makes it easier to hide the math and use hand waving.
Also, Physicist working in physic particle also believe that "5)" and "6)" are the correct approach, and the other are just useful for teaching and for historical reasons. But to discover "7)" it's better to think about some weird new symmetry group [2].
For examples, a few years ago, it was popular to think the next step "7)" was using a new group SU(5) that combines SU(2) and SU(3). The problems is that the experiments gave different results than then new proposed theory, not too bad but like 1% off. I still remember my professor talking about how great was SU(5) and how the experiment disagree, and he looked heartbroken because he really liked SU(5).
[1] You should add some material about the historical discovery of the weak and strong forces between "5)" and "6)".
[2] Other's prefer superstrings for "7)", there are other approach, but all are weird.
The argument isn't against physicists inventing new fields or interactions to fit data. The argument is about why you can motivate it as "something that has to be added out of pure logic" :)