This review basically asserts that there has to be dark matter and MOND can't possibly be true. This may well be the case, but in order to come to this conclusion in a fair and objective manner, it is necessary to learn something about both sides of the issue. While many of the standard (and valid) arguments in favor of dark matter are recapitulated here, the author does not appear to have bothered to learn squat about MOND. This becomes immediately obvious in his Table 1, which lists all the reasons we've come to believe in dark matter. Duh. This is a classic epistomological error. Zwicky did not find evidence for dark matter - he found evidence for mass discrepancies. That could mean dark matter, or it could mean that a change in the equations being applied was in order - i.e., something like MOND. This error of perspective permeats this review, which doesn't even both to cite any actual data papers supporting MOND, just a few of the negatives.

I understand the antipathy towards MOND. I came to the subject with much the same attitude - it couldn't possibly be true; CDM was obviosly the right answer. However, as I found myself working very hard to try to understand simple things in terms of CDM, I realized that in order to be objective, I should work just as hard with just as positive an attitude in favor of MOND. To my surprise, as soon as I let myself do this, I found myself working a lot less hard. Indeed, I have already reviewed and published pretty much every topic discussed in this review, and was positively impressed by how well MOND did in most cases. Hell, I used it to predict the baryonic oscillation this review says would be so hard for MOND to explain! So I changed my mind. Being willing to do this is the hallmark of objectivity; I'm happy to change it back if the dark matter experiments ever come up with a convincing detection.

In the mean time, this review does not encourage me about the objectivity of some of those involved in the dark matter searches. Everybody is so damn sure that a Nobel prize awaits them there that the last thing they want to do is reconsider the possibility that they may be searching so hard for something that simply isn't there. Hey, I can understand - if you spend decades of your career working on something, you don't want it to all be for naught. Got news for you though - Nature don't give a hoot if you waste your career.

So, I ask you: how much do you actually know about MOND? How many MOND papers have you read? If you're like me from a long time ago, the answers were little and none. I would suggest that that does not provide an adequate knowledge base to make an informed scientific judgement.

Return to Literature page