>"Our equations don't work out, let's give our error term a name and act like it's all good" Not really. People make this argument for both dark energy and dar

>"Our equations don't work out, let's give our error term a name and act like it's all good" Not really. People make this argument for both dark energy and dark matter, and some people try to solve both of these (not necessarily at the same time) by trying to modify general relativity. The problem is that we have observational evidence for both of them, and no alternative theory has come close to the level of accuracy and precision as GR has. That isn't to say that we shouldn't be looking at potential alternative explanations to DM/DE, and the fact that there isn't scientific consensus on them at current doesn't mean that they're wrong (Wegener basically ended up losing his career over proposing continental drift was a thing), but at present, scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of both DE and DM existing because we have more evidence for them than anything else, and the models that incorporate them are more accurate and precise than anything else. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement in GR/SR/QM, etc. And there are some things where the math breaks down and we do sort of just shrug. Topically, black holes are among them - at least when it comes to the singularity and infinite density. In reality, the black holes we see out in the universe almost certainly don't have a point of infinite density.