Really what's the difference. Either we can fit it in to our models or we have to change the models. It always bothers me that so many people in the scientific community speak of our scientific models of the physical world as if they were truth itself.

All models are flawed and only imitate reality by definition. We must accept that our models are only a glimpse of the real thing. We barely manage to grok our own planet let alone galaxies unfathomably beyond our reach yet we are consistently surprised when our models turn out to yet again be wrong. We know for a fact that our currently accepted physical models are flawed. To start with, we cannot fully reconcile gravity or "spooky action at a distance." The only reason our current models are useful, like any useful model, is that they are somewhat good at predicting a very limited set of future outcomes given measurable parameters.

Why can't we admit that what we currently know only seems impressive to a few moderately advanced apes but in reality it is likely only tiny drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge our universe holds.

All that said I'm very pro skepticism. Just because science is dumb does not mean every other random idea is valid. It's the common arogance of the scientific community that grates on my nerves.

End rant.