[Jevon23]

>1) It's certainly not unheard of for theories have observational or experimental data appears that sends them back to the drawing board for reworking and do eventually get to a consistent state

Sure. But when the socially dominant theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “a temporary setback that calls for some reworking”, and when a heterodox theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “falling flat on its face”, as you can see in another reply below. That’s not a healthy dynamic.

> There's not some shadowy cabal of cosmologists doing everything in their power to keep the cult of dark matter alive.

No… but curiously, you will get your comment flagged and removed on HN for making such a claim!

[cthalupa]

>and when a heterodox theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “falling flat on its face”, as you can see in another reply below. That’s not a healthy dynamic.

Because none of them get even close to explaining as much as dark matter does. This isn't complicated or a radical shift in standards - it's just requiring something be as good as the existing answer to get serious discussion. Pointing out that dark matter isn't perfect isn't an argument for things that are significantly less perfect than dark matter. There are massive gaps between dark matter and alternative theories. Something that worked as well as dark matter did and only struggled with a similar number of outliers wouldn't be said to fall flat on its face - but nothing is even in the same ballpark as it.

The more that can be explaining by an existing theory, the higher the bar is for any alternative theory to displace it. This is just how science has always worked.

>No… but curiously, you will get your comment flagged and removed on HN for making such a claim!

Because conspiracy theories with no evidence or grounding in reality don't make for intellectually stimulating discussion, I imagine.

[mr_mitm]

Ah, yes, of course HN is in bed with Big Cosmology.