"Best explains our current observations" is tautological because you can imagine invisible mass for any system to explain arbitrary observations provided you ar

"Best explains our current observations" is tautological because you can imagine invisible mass for any system to explain arbitrary observations provided you are only modeling the system instantaneously (note galactic vs human timescales). Dark matter fanatics want to assert the supremacy of a system that is literally derived by fitting residuals using computational models, but anything can be explained that way using results of a simulation if you wanted. I could elaborate a complicated system of invisible mass to explain geocentrism if I wanted. Doesn't make it a good model. You will note I didn't actually say "dark matter is wrong" but rather "there is nothing to the very foundations of the model itself". I'm not arguing against dark matter so much as for a theory of substance.