We know that a science model is wrong, because we make it up. So, we test it against nature-as best we can-making it better through paradigmatic research. It's all about data--best fit. It doesn't have to make sense--and sooner or later it falls apart.
The philosophy model does not have to rely on data, but it strives to be true by being logically consistent. Since science is part of philosophy, older scientists often find speculating without data liberating. It's also less work!
As someone who has never mastered even rudimentary science, and has failed to master the mathematical principles underlying scientific philosophy, you're left as a science pop media enthusiast--cheering them on like rock stars. The science "stars" chosen are attractive and entertaining--though they may have given up scientific practice years before.
Practicing scientists in real life (even the Nobel prize winners I have known) can be pretty boring--more often found collecting/analyzing data and writing reports.