[im3w1l]

I think observation and model almost necessarily have to be conflated. What we really see is light hitting our retina, or if you want to go one layer further, nerve impulses in our visual cortex. Everything else is model.

So if we accept that everything is model, then what you are really advocating is using verbose descriptions in terms of a fairly established model rather than succinct descriptions in a more speculative model. Phrasing it like this makes it clear that there is a balance to be struck between pros and cons. Maybe we are erring on the speculative side, but you will have to make that case.

[User23]

Thank you for helping clarify what I'm saying. You've definitely got it right. To elaborate, consider the difference between calculating the distance to a star in the Milky Way using parallax where the model is basically just assume your eyes work plus trigonometry and calculating the distance to other galaxies where far more assumptions are required.

Edit: response from cygx is completely missing the point about control vs selection.

[cygx]

Which is no different in other branches of physics: Have you ever seen a quark?

If you have a model that makes testable predictions, it's science. Cosmology is not only science, but physics, making your original comment contrasting the two kind of nonsensical...

[cygx]

response from cygx is completely missing the point about control vs selection

Because your comment I responded to was arguing something different - namely, the number of required assumptions.

Due to confinement, the existence of quarks rests on quite a lot of them.