The deeper you get into scientific communities, the less controversial it is to speculate since the more likely you are to care about knowing enough about the t

The deeper you get into scientific communities, the less controversial it is to speculate since the more likely you are to care about knowing enough about the topic before saying anything (or otherwise have a better read on how much you don't know of what you're talking about). The controversy comes up because it has become pop science to discuss alternative proposals to DM/DE without properly conveying why DM/DE are the leading candidates for their associated measurement abnormalities. So you get a lot of people who functionally know nothing about the topic arguing that DM/DE are illogical because according to them scientists are just fudging the data. This is a thing even with the more informed/STEM-minded crowd of HN.