Well - I would say this article is trying to discuss why it would be unlikely -
Namely, most of the experiments we can find to experimentally test for dark matter fail.
Just because a model fits our current data doesn't make it correct (honestly - my strong stance is no model is correct, but some models are useful, and some more useful than others).
Epicycles were a fantastic explanation for the timing and movements of planets appearing in the sky - They were the best model we had for hundreds of years, but the model was also utterly incorrect.
It wasn't until an almost rock solid assumption (that earth was the center of everything) was assaulted by Copernicus that we developed much more robust models.
I find it fairly interesting that epicycles were also an attempt to explain a observational data that was very hard to fit into current models. There's a fairly straight parallel to dark matter here.
I find it very compelling that we have a foundational assumption in our current model that isn't true, and that's why we're offsetting everything with dark matter to make the math line back up with reality.
I understand what you're saying, despite not necessarily agreeing with everything you are saying.
It's just really odd to say:
"X produces the best model we have"
But also say:
"X is an unlikely solution".
If it produces the best model we have, it's the most likely solution at this time. That doesn't guarantee it will ultimately be the correct solution, sure.
Totally fair. But we're in that weird spot where we've been trying to find a concrete example of dark matter (testable hypothesis that would apply) and so far we're not coming up all that hot.
So I guess "unlikely" is probably too strong even in my opinion. I just think it hints that we have a structural problem in the house, and continuing to add wall paper is probably not going to fix the issue, we need a shift in understanding somewhere else.
Namely, most of the experiments we can find to experimentally test for dark matter fail.
Just because a model fits our current data doesn't make it correct (honestly - my strong stance is no model is correct, but some models are useful, and some more useful than others).
Epicycles were a fantastic explanation for the timing and movements of planets appearing in the sky - They were the best model we had for hundreds of years, but the model was also utterly incorrect.
It wasn't until an almost rock solid assumption (that earth was the center of everything) was assaulted by Copernicus that we developed much more robust models.
I find it fairly interesting that epicycles were also an attempt to explain a observational data that was very hard to fit into current models. There's a fairly straight parallel to dark matter here.
I find it very compelling that we have a foundational assumption in our current model that isn't true, and that's why we're offsetting everything with dark matter to make the math line back up with reality.