This paper is very similar to the denial phase I went through when first forced to confront MOND seriously myself in 1994. How could this possible be true? The problem is that, near as I can tell, MOND is empirically correct. This is a phenomenology we need to understand.

But that might mean losing CDM. Losing CDM is like losing a dear friend, with all the associated emotions: denial, anger, and grief. To work through these emotions objectively demands we hold ourselves to the most rigorous standards of intellectual honesty. This means the ability to change our minds as the data demands.

I've done that: I overcame my pro-CDM inclinations to consider MOND seriously. If the data change to favor CDM, I'll change my mind in that direction. For the most part, things are going the opposite way: the more the data improve, the more they agree with MOND. This is a real challenge to modern sceince, and modern scientists: can we consider these issues objectively?

There is a real danger that the `standard' cosmology will develop into something other than science. There have been plenty of times in human history when people thought they had a pretty good handle on cosmology. Are we really so much better now? Or are we just priests of a cold, dark religion?