You wrote "What if there's no such a thing as <something we have studied and understood in detail for decades> and we've been observing interactions with <something we hypothesise might exist but we know next to nothing about> all along?"

Why did you jump to the conclusion that the well understood thing should be replaced by the new and unknown thing?

It doesn't seem to me like a big leap of logic to go from something being shown to be influenced by a so far unknown particle and the same thing being the result of interactions with this particle.

I believe that the code phrase is "Not even wrong" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong]

What phrase is "not even wrong"?

He means that the original statement is so vague that not only it is not true, but we can't even say that it is wrong.

It's like if I said:

"What if zebras are green and red, but we see them as black and white because we don't drink enough water?".

It kind of sounds like an actual logical argument, but it's not even wrong.

I admit it could be worded better, but that doesn't make it "not even wrong", it makes it poorly worded.

It's not the wording -- it's the content. Or rather, the lack of it.