to be clear, I didn't mean to criticize anyone by comparing things to astrology (... except kinda some forms of literary criticism, but I shouldn't have done th

to be clear, I didn't mean to criticize anyone by comparing things to astrology (... except kinda some forms of literary criticism, but I shouldn't have done that, both because it was rude, and also because it was not a good comparison). I was just giving cases of where something could make sense to really criticize without understanding it, trying to get closer to a characterization of the situations in which that would make sense. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that your current notions are "bonkers". I apologize if it came off that way. And, I mean that sincerely, not just in a "sorry if you were offended" way, but like, in a "if that was the way it came across (and it seems it was), then I am at fault, and I am sorry." way. Even if you didn't take it that way, the way I wrote my comment was probably a bit harsh, and it shouldn't have been. Certainly I don't have a good enough understanding of cosmology to defend any models of it on at the object level, and it seems to me that there are some that do, who have reasons they prefer non dark-matter (or, ... sorta-non-dark-matter?) explanations? And I guess, some people from the people-who-understand-cosmology-well community will give simplified accounts for people without the math background for why they suspect their view (either for dark matter or not) will turn out to be the one that is right, and it makes sense that some people in the audience would be convinced one way or the other by some of these explanations. So, now I realize something I am confused about: If two experts (who, say, are both generally respected in a field, and who respect one-another) give for-popular-audience simplifications of their reasons for believing their opposing positions regarding a particular question in the field, and if one of their positions is the more common, almost "standard", view in the field (but where the question isn't considered really settled, and basically everyone in the field agrees that neither is strictly ruled out) but one finds the for-outsiders explanation of the less common position to be convincing, and the for-outsiders explanation of the more common position to be unconvincing, what should one believe? How should one weigh how convincing one finds the simplified versions of the arguments, against the fact that a substantial majority of the field finds the other view more likely? I am genuinely unsure! Maybe it depends on, the reason for the differences in how convincing one finds the simplified arguments?