We shouldn't accept things as true simply because gathering accurate data is hard. Quite the opposite.
Of course not. But that's not what I was talking about. We may have varying degrees of certainty about something based on the data we have. That doesn't change the utility and importance of trying to infer something from what data we do have.
Particle physics, however, by it's very nature is very statistical these days. You don't observe anything directly, you observe things 3-4 steps removed from the interesting event, with a statistical model of what the decay products can be at each step. There's nothing but statistical inference typing actual measurements back to theory. Given that level of indirection, caution is called for.
Let me share a story I heard once about indirect evidence.
Do you know for certain that electrons exist? How? Have you ever seen one? All of the evidence for their existence is indirect.
Compare this with...
Do you know for certain that the Pope exists? How? Have you ever met him? All of the evidence for his existence is indirect.