In that case I humbly suggest avoiding such confusion by using distinct terms for distinct conceps. Regardless, it still seems premature to say MACHOs don't cause faster than predicted galactic rotation because they don't create the local gravitational lensing they would if homongeneously distributed at the "large scales" relevant to them. A heterogeneous distribution ought to be on the table, particularly if what every GUT but one predicts about conservation of baryon number proves valid. Regardless of THAT, homongeneous dark matter distribution at galactic scales, the only basis on which the article can be taken to rule out MACHOs, is never addressed BY the article, so it doesn't so much make as accept the case against MACHOs.

Indeed, rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. Somehow I doubt you're as indulgent with handwaving what's "still undetermined" about "known" supernatural phenomena. He explicitly makes a statement very reminiscent of the conventional wisdom a century ago naught remained for physics save filling in the details of the comprehensively known science. That's the kind of hubris you keep insisting science has outgrown, but the article is rife with it, IMHO because until humanity outgrows such presumption it will persist in all our disciplines. THAT'S my evidence that he relentlessly sought out specific data to confirm his suppositions: He explicitly treats the composition of the universe itself as a settled matter, leaving room for no uncertainty except the nature of those detailed nature of those comprehensively known components. Each persons standard of "reasonable" doubt is unique (hence we have juries); I wouldn't want to say you and Dr. Carroll are "wrong" about a probability (particularly not of something you've largely convinced me is true), but I can't share the level of confidence ya'll apparently do, nor do I envy it.

Each persons standard of "reasonable" doubt is unique (hence we have juries); I wouldn't say you and Dr. Carroll are "wrong" about a probability (particularly not of something you've largely convinced me is true), but can't share the level of confidence ya'll apparently do, nor do I envy it. Much of what separates rigorous disciplined philosophies like science and law from fantasy is that they deal with what can be PROVEN rather than what is known. I agree that exotic dark matter is proven by a preponderance of evidence (though much of it is circumstantial), but can't go as far as proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and think it dangerous to strain at the edge of our leash on certainty only until unearthing a long and eagerly sought smoking gun proving the case we always knew to be valid. Investigators already convinced of something producing proof they "knew" existed CREATES reasonable doubt even among those otherwise inclined to believe them and the evidence, and I wouldn't want the Bullet Cluster to become dark matters bloody glove. Look what minor irregularities in Climategate did to Global Warming.