>>12614090Adding in things with zero evidence for their existence, e.g. dark energy, isn't an extra variable. It's plugging a hole in your failing model to justify why it's a valid model. Consider, for example, if I said that God created life. Then I eventually discover that life had evolved over time, where the eye had evolved countless times over life's existence, all life traced back to a common ancestor via microbes, etc. What I should do is discard my mistaken model that God created humans. If, instead, I merely modify my model to say "ah, but you see, God created the first microbe therefore he created Human and us in his image!", I'd be engaging in intellectual dishonesty and most certainly not engaging in any kind of scientific rigor.
When a scientific model fails, you discard it. You don't just patch it with unverified bullshit.
