> It would, I think, better inform the public about the actual process of science, rather than making it sound like a new discovery has been made, which has not

> It would, I think, better inform the public about the actual process of science, rather than making it sound like a new discovery has been made, which has not happened, clearly. I disagree with this -- dark matter and dark energy have been discovered in exactly the same sense e.g. quarks have been discovered. Like dark matter and dark energy, quarks cannot be observed directly. Rather, physicists have made observations that are most parsimoniously explained by the existence of a theoretical entity with certain characteristics we have named a "quark". Similarly, physicists have made observations that are most parsimoniously explained by the existence of theoretical entities that behave like matter and energy but are otherwise difficult to observe (like quarks are difficult to observe directly). The standard model provides a theoretical understanding of the nature of quarks -- but if further findings in particle physics disprove the standard model, then we'll have invalidated our understanding of the nature of quarks. Similarly, if a future theory shows that dark matter and dark energy are not weakly interacting matter and energy then we'll have invalidated our understanding of the nature of dark matter and dark energy.