> There is no evidence that dark matter even exists other than...
Most of our theories about the universe are based on evidence from secondary, tertiary, etc effects. It's often the best we can do.
I don't think you'd find anyone who would object to the idea that "our theory is incomplete" ("all models are wrong", etc), so it seems like your main objection seems to be that we've given a name to a family of theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon we've grouped under "dark matter".
> I think it's far more likely that our theory is incomplete rather than some whole new class of invisible matter/energy being conjured into existence just to counter-balance our 1) wrong equations and/or 2) wrong observations
It's rather human to make an estimate of likelihood based on how long ago something was conjectured to exist :) Moreover "wrong equations" and/or "wrong observations" are part of the very theories attempting to explain our current state of knowledge.
> So many non-scientists think dark matter is proven. It isn't. It's nothing but pure conjecture.
Actually, usually the issue with these discussions are with scientifically literate folks who read a Scientific American article on dark matter in 1998 and have engaged with that as a strawman ever since. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is odd to me how many people are convinced they're bringing light to the darkness with these kinds of comments.
Most of our theories about the universe are based on evidence from secondary, tertiary, etc effects. It's often the best we can do.
I don't think you'd find anyone who would object to the idea that "our theory is incomplete" ("all models are wrong", etc), so it seems like your main objection seems to be that we've given a name to a family of theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon we've grouped under "dark matter".
> I think it's far more likely that our theory is incomplete rather than some whole new class of invisible matter/energy being conjured into existence just to counter-balance our 1) wrong equations and/or 2) wrong observations
It's rather human to make an estimate of likelihood based on how long ago something was conjectured to exist :) Moreover "wrong equations" and/or "wrong observations" are part of the very theories attempting to explain our current state of knowledge.
> So many non-scientists think dark matter is proven. It isn't. It's nothing but pure conjecture.
Actually, usually the issue with these discussions are with scientifically literate folks who read a Scientific American article on dark matter in 1998 and have engaged with that as a strawman ever since. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it is odd to me how many people are convinced they're bringing light to the darkness with these kinds of comments.