Similarly, the big problem with today's theoritical physics is that physicists are conjouring up stuff like dark energy and dark matter to "fit the gap" between theory and observation without any sound basis for their existence. Much like pre-copernican mathematicians conjoured up complex circular orbits orbiting circular orbits to explain planetary motion.
> physicists are conjouring up stuff like dark energy and dark matter to "fit the gap" between theory and observation without any sound basis for their existence.
Physicists are undertaking a wide range of experimental programs to look for more satisfying explanations of what underlies ΛCDM cosmology (which I guess is the "conjouring" [sic] that you are referring to). Such experiments could also show that ΛCDM cosmology is wrong or needs to be modified. But right now, ΛCDM cosmology does a pretty good job of explaining the data we have so far.
I'm not sure what else you would have physicists do—should they just not talk about the fact that there's a relatively parsimonious framework that explains the large-scale behavior of the universe?
