No one has ever observed a gluon or a quark. If they exist at all, they are locked inside particles where we can only go theoretically.
One who would like to understand nature might be better off observing nature directly, which does not require special knowledge, or at least not much. One would profit from starting with a thorough study of what we really know about nature from direct observations, rather than what has been filtered through a lot of theoretical gymnastics. One who knows the well-observed properties of particles, atoms, stars, galaxies, etc. — what nature contains and how they are observed to behave — has a solid foundation of knowledge from which one is better able to appreciate and evaluate theoretical models that try to explain phenomena, fields of study or the whole cosmos.
On the wall of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass there is a plaque with a famous saying by some biologist. It says: “Study nature, not books”.
Another version of that statement might be: first study nature assiduously and only then study theories of nature with a healthy skepticism.