There is a web of issues pertaining to the theoretical underpinnings of science that I would like to read more about, and so if anyone could take a look at the following claims and questions and recommend me further resources that discuss these kinds of issues, I’d appreciate it. It seems to be a fundamental assumption of science that empirical evidence must, in principle, accord with logical or mathematical theory, and vice versa; that any sufficiently strong observed pattern in reality has a corresponding theoretical description that we can discover and integrate with other theoretical descriptions, and that any sufficiently strong theoretical description can predict patterns in reality we may observe. But why should these things be connected? Note I’m not necessarily disputing that they are connected but asking, how can we explain why they are connected?
If the question is "how come theory is effective at describing nature", that would be because we make theories to match with what we observe in nature. Whether the observations are first, or the theory is first, then is confirmed by experiments/observations doesn't really matter - we make the theory to align with what see, and we revise the theories as we learn more about nature, to preserve as much as possible of the explanatory power of the theory.
Note, that theories are not necessarily saying what nature is, but only attempt to describe, more or less successfully, what we see. The theories that don't work well are actually dismissed in favor of better ones.
So there is no great magic or surprise here: we make the theories that we found useful to describe what we see.
The reason theory and nature are connectable/connected is that we observe that there seems to be some order, or regularities in nature. That seems required to even try to have theories about nature. So far, we seem to have been successful at observing/explaining some of/exploiting that order. The Universe could have been chaotic without any regularity or order, and we would have been in serious trouble. So at the end of the day, I think what makes it possible to have theories about nature is that there is some order/regularities in nature after all.
The reason is that we live in a Universe that exhibits properties that can be modelled with mathematics. All material objects are made from a common family of fundamental building blocks which interact in a systematic way. If that were not the case- if matter could not be reduced into common building blocks, and if matter and energy and spacetime interacted in ways that varied randomly, then it would be impossible for us to formulate the kinds of theories you find in science.
More importantly, perhaps, if the Universe had been entirely random, then humans would not have evolved, so we would not have been here to investigate it.
As to why the Universe is exactly as it is, we don't yet have an answer to that. So it remains puzzling that so much of mathematics- which seems entirely abstract in nature- seems to reflect the patterns we observe in the Universe around us.
Mathematics works because there are objects in reality and they have properties. When we understand these properties, and express them in mathematical form, we can then predict how they will behave.
We know we have detected such a property when we can predict how things will behave. That is, when a theory is validated.
This does not mean we have achieved absolute and final truth. It means we have observed, at some level of accuracy, that a thing has a property.
A mundane example may help. Consider a bowling ball. We can attempt to predict where it will roll given a certain push to start. One way to do this is to treat it as a uniform sphere. Enter a bunch of mathematics. And guess what? It works fairly well, to some level of accuracy. The ball is spherical to this degree of accuracy.
When we measure things more accurately, maybe it does not work. When we measure the speed and angle of the ball more accurately, maybe we note discrepancy. Look, it wobbles here when spheres shouldn't wobble. So we go look more carefully at the ball. Finger holes! The ball has "non-sphericity." So it's not a perfect sphere. Does the non-sphericity account for the discrepancy? A bunch more mathematics. Yes it does. Again, to this degree of accuracy.
We get more accurate. The ball isn't quite perfectly spherical on one side. More maths. It isn't quite perfectly uniform in its internal material. More maths. Lather, rinse, send back to shipper by return post, repeat. At each step, we measure the behavior as well as we can, predict what will happen based on the properties we suppose, and it works to some degree of accuracy. When it fails we look for new properties.
This process is a big part of what science is about.
Examples abound. Sometimes the nature of the "non-sphericity" is mundane and we are not perplexed by it. The Earth, for example, has hills, valleys, rivers, lakes, oceans, and so on. So we are not surprised that walking distances cannot be treated perfectly as moving on the surface of a sphere. Sometimes the "non-sphericity" is surprising and people resist it. Quantum mechanics still sometimes defeats people who have taken advanced degrees in it. Yet the agreement between experiment and calculation is stupendous.
Calculation and experiment for the magnetic moment of the electron agrees to 10 significant digits. The current limits are on the ability to calculate more accurately, since the calculation becomes very much harder at each order. There is clearly some knowledge of the properties of objects here.
But at each step we are measuring the behavior of existing things. Then we are attempting to make predictions based on hypothesized properties. If the predictions are successful, we have detected a property, at least to that degree of accuracy.