[Buttons840]

What's more engaging?

"We know the facts. We have it all figured out." Then the facts change years later.

Or "There's a great mystery here, a secret we haven't yet found. We're still looking, but here's some ideas that seem to explain 90% of what we're seeing."

The second is so much more engaging and would promote more interest and science funding.

[Mountain_Skies]

It would also help retain public belief that science is a process for neutral seeking of the truth rather than a self-interested force with rapidly dropping credibility. Some revision is inevitable but it doesn't need to be routinely due to having been intentionally misleading.

[Tagbert]

The second is how I have normally seen dark matter presented. The first is only used as ridicule.