There are so many good scientists like yourself that seem to me at least to have a fairly narrow field of view when it comes to knowledge about competing models and theories within one's field of qualification, but also in other disciplines.
I don't think it is related to being narrow (at least I like to think that way). I am currently working on half a dozen subjects (some of them being even competing with each others, somehow), and I have worked on numerous different topics in the past. The real problem is that my time is limited and I cannot work on everything. I therefore decide carefully on what I focus.
But like you stated before you have never really looked into the EU and also the plasma universe (there are differences) which then seems to me a strange starting point from where one could judge these paradigms.
I indeed didn't. I quickly noticed that such a framework does not allow for quantitative predictions, which is a good reason to me to pass. I don't see why I should work on something that cannot be compared with data. Note that for almost the same reason, I don't work on string theory (although in this case predictions can be made; they are however far from being testable with current data). This is my choice.
Finally, other options different from the standard model of cosmology exist, but they do not provide a fit to data that is as good as in the case of the standard model of cosmology (at least to my knowledge, which is what it is).
This then seems to me like a closed knowledge loop which is destined to stay within its boundaries.
I mostly added the second part of the sentence to protect myself from making a wrong statement. From all alternatives I investigated, none of them seem to make a fit to data that is as good. Modified gravity theories are one example (which you may dislike ;) ). This is the reason why I decided to focus on standard cosmology as part of my research. In fact, dark matter barely consists of about 1/5 of everything I work on, most subjects having nothing to do with dark matter.
I hope this clarifies a bit my previous statement.
Cheers!
and to add, I think the general "problem" is just how complicated the world is! It is super tough for the human mind/brain to wrap its head around this world we find ourselves in. I sometimes feel we only really understand 1% (at best) of nature and much of the rest could be too difficult for us to really comprehend. And then there are the thousands of papers in one's field that one has to "read" in order to stay on top of things which is basically also an impossible task (again the time argument). Perhaps artificial intelligence could be one of the next steps to really gain greater insight?
Machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques are already widely used, but more to solve specific problems and not to get a general knowledge of a field (from what I know as this is a bit far from my zone of comfort).
thanks it did :)