[pdonis]

> It would better be described as a phenomenology

Not really, no, because current cosmological models are not derived solely by looking at cosmological phenomena and coming up with phenomenological equations that describe them. (That is not to say that past cosmological models didn't do that; only that our current ones, roughly since the early to mid-20th century, don't.) They are derived by starting from laws of physics that already work in other domains, and seeing what those laws say about the universe as a whole.

> to be absolutely clear what the assumptions of the model are, even the most trusted ones

Cosmologists are clear about that.

> maybe this is just an issue in the popular press?

I think it is, since what I see in actual textbooks [1] and peer-reviewed papers is not at all like what you are describing.

[1] A good reasonably current textbook is Liddle's Introduction to Modern Cosmology.

[ngcc_hk]

Great touch. Actually I think we have model based science quite many decades now, but those model need to be anchored on testable and refutable something. (Phenomena is loaded word as I wonder it assumes model free and equipment free a bit). Model and refutable is key here.

We still have the qm to deal with. Just hope our model is even understandable. But at least that model is refutable.

As for correctness, I suspect we might never see 100% ever though. That is partly we are just have a century of major re-think about the fossilization of good science. And there is just happen our maths and mind can understand quite a bit of the universe.

There is always something to be found is good. And there is no guarantees we will know it all. That is good too. As it keeps the most important of science and philosophy alive:

Curiosity.

[User23]

Thanks for the recommendation, I ordered that text.