There are many interesting comments pro and con the the question. Over a recent period of time, I have had a good and thoughtful discussion with a nuclear physi

There are many interesting comments pro and con the the question. Over a recent period of time, I have had a good and thoughtful discussion with a nuclear physicists and educator about models in science. He did challenge me to look further into the subject, which I have. My statement to him was that "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Since that discussion, looking into mathematics , experimental evidence, various opposing theories about particular areas of science, I am now more in agreement with the statement "that all models are wrong, but some are useful". Our understanding of the universe around us is not only limited, but, we humans (all of us) get caught up in the dogmatic belief of our underlying premises. This works to limit our understanding about any area. The tools we use to do the investigation of the universe around us are just that tools. Whether we use machine learning and computers or space probes, telescopes, high energy colliders or electron microscopes, rulers and meters, these tools are only useful to the extent that we do not ignore the experimental results. In it very obvious that many (scientists) ignore questions that challenge their "pet" models. There are no stupid questions, just inappropriate answers. There is much data that has been collected that does not fit the standard consensus models and thinking. Whether or not an alternative model is useful, is not the problem here. It is the immediate response of anger that you should question the "dogma" that, in the end, limits our ability to further our understanding of the universe around us. I, personally, do not believe in major standard models in use today. I find that there are significant problems with those models in explaining the world around us and leave too many things ignored. Do I have an alternative model - No. But that's okay. I am not required to supply an alternative model, I just have to point out inconsistencies in the models and evidential data that is being ignored. Far too often, reputations are considered more important than inconsistencies. Consensus more important than problems in the models. If a question is raised that disputes a particular model and it cannot be answered simply then it might be a good idea to look for an alternative simpler explanation. There are ideas that are completely off the wall, but if investigated properly, we can discount appropriately and in that investigation we may find further areas for study that would not arise otherwise. Science should be fun.