> I didn't find the reply especially convincing, or the arguments for the likelihood of small numbers raised in the main essay. The author isn't trying to conv

> I didn't find the reply especially convincing, or the arguments for the likelihood of small numbers raised in the main essay. The author isn't trying to convince you of her counterargument to doctrine. The author is trying to convince you to be less convinced by hand-waviness in lieu of rigorous deduction. The author doesn't even believe that inflation is incorrect, nor does she claim to believe MOND over standard dark matter models; she is pointing out that taking one good, well-evidenced, well-reasoned theory and using it as a prop to chock up a piece of shaky, though attractive, supposition is bad science. She's pointing out that even highly regarded thinkers can allow simplification for the purpose of communication and impact to erase complexity in reasoning and teaching. So yeah, her arguments may not convince you. She's not trying to convince you, she's trying to show you reasonable doubt. Different standard of evidence.