I like this point a lot. But then I have to ask... why do I continuously encounter arguments that claim that the fundamental science of these scales is simply settled?
It feels like I read claims that dark matter is both a "given fact" and a "placeholder abstraction" -- from the same person, or at least perspective. They just choose to shift betweeen the two based on what serves their upper hand in a discussion better.
Or reading someone mention that "there is no fundamental difference between mass and energy" while simultaneously defending an entirely gravity-based cosmology that depends on the mass of particles... as if simple energy could not also contribute the same impact of said particles.
I think in general there is a feeling that any theory or speculation which is not dubbed into the dignity of mainstream, accepted dogma needs to be kicked out of the discourse. The fact that we are ultimately inferring in all cases is left out of the discussion and that seems to flatten all "outside" perspectives into a single umbrella of pseudoscience, despite this label accurately fitting -- under the above conditions -- onto heliocentrism, germ theory, chromosonal genetics, plate tectonics, the physical existence of Troy, and just about every paradigm that has resulted in scientific progress in the past.
I'm absolutely not claiming that all things currently labelled psuedoscientific are built the same. I only mean to highlight that science highlights "this is all inference" when it suits it best but otherwise -- in my experience -- discourages such frank reference to its own fallibility when confronted with alternative inferences.
In my experience this mostly occurs when people don't recognize names like Popper and Feierabend, and consider science and humanities to be mutually exclusive. Likely borne of a neurotic desire for certainty in all things. At least, that's my best guess having been steeped in the cultures of academia and industry for so long.
It feels like I read claims that dark matter is both a "given fact" and a "placeholder abstraction" -- from the same person, or at least perspective. They just choose to shift betweeen the two based on what serves their upper hand in a discussion better.
Or reading someone mention that "there is no fundamental difference between mass and energy" while simultaneously defending an entirely gravity-based cosmology that depends on the mass of particles... as if simple energy could not also contribute the same impact of said particles.
I think in general there is a feeling that any theory or speculation which is not dubbed into the dignity of mainstream, accepted dogma needs to be kicked out of the discourse. The fact that we are ultimately inferring in all cases is left out of the discussion and that seems to flatten all "outside" perspectives into a single umbrella of pseudoscience, despite this label accurately fitting -- under the above conditions -- onto heliocentrism, germ theory, chromosonal genetics, plate tectonics, the physical existence of Troy, and just about every paradigm that has resulted in scientific progress in the past.
I'm absolutely not claiming that all things currently labelled psuedoscientific are built the same. I only mean to highlight that science highlights "this is all inference" when it suits it best but otherwise -- in my experience -- discourages such frank reference to its own fallibility when confronted with alternative inferences.