> I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. Actually you didn't. Perhaps you claimed that in another thread, but I quoted exactly what you wrot

> I explicitly said it might very well not be the only one. Actually you didn't. Perhaps you claimed that in another thread, but I quoted exactly what you wrote in this thread, which is that only DM can explain those results. > Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND. That's not a correct formulation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of more things than are necessary to explain observations. Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist, or doesn't exist in the amounts most people think exists, ie. most DM models have been refuted. Therefore, even if DM exists, something else is still needed to explain our observations.