"In particle physics, it's fine to dissent over whether this or that fundamental force carrier may be the cause of the latest round of measurement discrepancies

"In particle physics, it's fine to dissent over whether this or that fundamental force carrier may be the cause of the latest round of measurement discrepancies (analysis: because that reinforces dynamics in the field that channel funding and personnel to making new measurements and theories), but it's unfine to dissent over whether we should chuck the entirety of the theoretical edifice (depending on where you come down, you may read the preceding as "dogma") of dark energy down the drain (analysis: because, while not very explanatory, it safely does not challenge (nor threaten to challenge) everything else we are busy doing)." Yes, but in point of fact there is a lot of dissent of all sorts in this field and very little commitment among experts to the idea that our fundamental approach (QFT) doesn't require some kind of conceptual revision. Even among people proposing major revisions (strings, lqg, etc) I've never detected any powerful suggestion on the part of most scientists that their pet theory is clearly and obviously correct and should just be accepted without evidence. Dark Energy and Dark Matter and widely felt to be inadequate explanations but major revisions in this ontology haven't manifested in the field because no one has proposed any effective ones. It is extremely easy in hindsight to say "this theory should have been more readily accepted," but that view ignores all the incorrect revisions which a field rejected because of due diligence and a reasonable expectation that new theories require good evidence.