The way I see the MOND vs Dark Matter is that there are two philosophies. One is we need to add something new to explain the behavior and the other is we need to adjust the existing theories.
This is key because people (IMO particularly engineers like myself) think when stuff is added it is less likely to be correct which in some cases true but others not so much.
The thing is MOND actually adds a bunch of stuff and doesn't explain a whole bunch of other stuff (yet). What sell me on dark matter is the clustering of galaxies and the universe itself (like how did we get these massive super black holes in the galaxy with MOND?).
On a rather tangental note... do you remember when maverick scientist were shunned and if you go back far enough in some cases heretics? Now days it seems to pay nicely to be contrarian in terms of media coverage (at the cost of being revolted by your peers. There was a SA article on this a while back (famous scientist being hated).
This is key because people (IMO particularly engineers like myself) think when stuff is added it is less likely to be correct which in some cases true but others not so much.
The thing is MOND actually adds a bunch of stuff and doesn't explain a whole bunch of other stuff (yet). What sell me on dark matter is the clustering of galaxies and the universe itself (like how did we get these massive super black holes in the galaxy with MOND?).
On a rather tangental note... do you remember when maverick scientist were shunned and if you go back far enough in some cases heretics? Now days it seems to pay nicely to be contrarian in terms of media coverage (at the cost of being revolted by your peers. There was a SA article on this a while back (famous scientist being hated).