Almost every time you give examples, you make basic conceptual mistakes regarding the structure of what you're talking about. That would be fine--nobody can know everything--but you're not accepting corrections or exploring your mistakes.

This matters incredibly much because if structuralism is only easier because you can be arbitrarily badly wrong, it doesn't much matter that it's "easier".

I'm as happy debating realism vs. anti-realism or the limits of epistemology, and whether or not they are coincident with the limits of the scientific method, as I am discussing how the standard model was formulated based on an explicit search for unification of symmetry groups. But you're not doing any of that. Just trite examples that do not extend in any useful way to anything.

So you can think what you wish about your perspective vs. mine, but you're certainly not showing it.

Perhaps in 2023 you will find it worthwhile to learn some physics in detail, and maybe some philosophy in detail, too. Regardless, I hope you have a good year.