When it comes to Dark Matter, I do get annoyed when people claim it to be real without having ever provided a shred of evidence to support that assertion. Is DM possible? Sure, and there is a lot of theoretical analysis to support it, but theory is not reality, so I think sometimes that scientists fall off the wagon of what science is really supposed to be all about.
With that said, at least this new finding (see article) isn't a computer model or mathematical masturbation as a form of "proof". Don't get me wrong, those have purpose, but this kind of information is what I'm patiently waiting for, to see if the "place holder" of Dark Matter has any chance of being more than theoretical.
"I want a lot of people who are experts to think about this hard and try to make it go away," he said. "If we all agree we can't, then we'll have our answer." -- Dan Hooper
And statements like this confirm why I love science, and is the proper stance for the true nature of what science is supposed to be all about. No blanket acceptance, no dogmatic stance never to be challenged, but quite the opposite, an ever present challenge brought on by the very people who discover things. The, "Please, prove me wrong," mentality that helps solidify ideas or reduce them to the trash bin, helping to expand our knowledge, because even if something is shown to be wrong, we have learned something new.
Science is always searching for the truth of the moment, but is never satisfied and passionately hunts for the next best truth with new knowledge and tools.
And with that mindset, we advance.