[nitwit005]

Let us imagine the view of a "normal person". Pop open a science textbook, and it will likely suggest the scientific method requires you to state your hypothesis, and test it as best you can.

So this normal person looks to see if this has happened, finds there are several rival theories, and no experiment done on Earth had produced results. Naturally, they start to doubt.

[imiric]

But doubt what, exactly? All science tells us is that there should be something there, but we don't know what it is. Nobody's asserting the contrary.

[rolenthedeep]

Physics only tells us that galaxies don't move the way we think they should.

There are two explanations: there is extra mass in galactic systems that we can't detect, or our understanding of gravity is more incorrect than previously thought.

When you dig in, there's a small amount of evidence that suggests there is extra mass, but also we can modify our equations of gravity to produce similar results.

Dark matter and MOND (one of the leading alternate gravity models) both have compelling cases for them, and both show exceptions that don't match observed data.

I genuinely don't understand why people push dark matter, as a solution it's way too complex for the problem it solves. It makes more sense that our model of gravity (which we know is already incomplete) is more incomplete than it does for there to be an entire class of matter that we can't detect or even construct meaningful theories about.

[nitwit005]

I've yet to encounter a speaker or article that just stated there is an observation they can't explain. They all talk about some theory or theories to try to explain things.

[imiric]

But that's not science. It takes a discernible reader to learn about this topic, and they should be able to distinguish between science and popular science which enjoys speculating. I think both are interesting and important in educating the public.

[nitwit005]

Yes, what people are doubting is a thing which does not match the textbook definition of science.

That was the whole thesis. I genuinely described the exersize of looking up a definition.

[enkid]

That's how science works. There's a mystery and science purposes a hypothesis resolving that mystery. If a hypothesis is clearly more consistent with the evidence then other hypothesises, it wins out. If not, there continues to be a debate.

[nitwit005]

My point is that people aren't sticking to tested ideas when communicating with the public. They're throwing untested ideas at them, or sometimes multiple incompatible untested ideas at them.

[pixl97]

And so? Are the 'science police' going to show up an arrest them?

There is a reason that scientists communicate with other scientists via papers and a process called peer review and not typically via the media. That is, to distill the topic down to a casual level requires many levels of abstraction and tend to be 'incorrect but interesting' as the media does not sell truth, but instead it sells advertising by making things interesting.

[mdorazio]

Doubt that magic pixie dust is the correct answer to "what's there?".

[enkid]

They should doubt, as all scientists should. People like to talk about dark matter versus MOND like it's two sides in war with one another. But I don't think that's the way most scientists view it (or rather should view it). They would be happy if there was clear evidence one way or the other and they could learn more about the universe one way or the other and they could move on to other mysteries.

[throwawaymaths]

Moreover they find that alternatives have made many specific predictions that have panned out (linear Tully-fisher with a specific slope, EFE, early galaxies), whereas mainline dm theories make fewer a priori predictions, but lots of a posteriori explanations. Notably, efe was shown by a group that set out to measure that it wasn't there to try to support LCDM. So, what is a layperson to do?