At a superficial level, sure. But that's in large part because of the nature of the problem. Dark Matter is the quintessential Unknown Unknown. It comes from the argument that we have a universe that is accelerating in its rate of expansion in a way that doesn't follow the understood shape of the universe.

Dark Matter / Energy solves the problem by positing a large invisible mass that's been compressed, like a spring, and is still being released following the Big Bang, propelling SpaceTime out in front of it.

But because all our measurements are occurring in a relatively small timeframe (relative to the history of the universe) and because we're working from a very limited perspective (not like we can pop over to the other side of the universe and confirm our findings), we have to make a lot of estimates and assumptions. Introducing/Dismissing some of these assumptions can "solve" certain problems very easily. But on closer inspection, they raise a bunch of new questions that can just as easily be debated.

Even the Nobel prize committee said fuck it

That's more because AI is "hot" right now and astrophysics isn't paying anyone's bills.

[–] acosmichippo 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think you're conflating dark matter and dark energy, they are two different things. Dark Energy is what's accelerating universal expansion. Dark Matter slows it down.

and I would actually classify them as "known unknowns" since they are holes in our understanding of physics that we're aware of. A true unknown unknown wouldn't be in scientific discussion at all or have even been given a name; it would be completely off our radar.