I never said it didn't. The point is that both MOND and dark matter add new physics.
It has one: there's no need to worry about finding a dark matter particle when there's no room in the standard model for one. I'm surprised how astrophysicists take for granted that such a particle will show up in a collider eventually, if they even think that far ahead.
This is a weird argument. The standard model is incomplete, we know it's incomplete, we don't expect it to be complete, and MOND doesn't fit in the standard model either.
Even if you limit it to things we have observed, the standard model simply doesn't explain gravity. It doesn't explain why neutrinos have mass. It doesn't explain matter/antimatter asymmetry.
We know gravity exists. We know neutrinos have mass. We know there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. These aren't remotely controversial, and the standard model either doesn't incorporate them or gets them wrong.
It's not an advantage at all. Parsimony would mean not having to postulate as many new entities. MOND postulates one new entity; so does dark matter.
MOND has a much more homogeneous behavior, that requires many less variables added to your theory. So I'll disagree, it has the Occam's Razor preference - for the same reason that ever instance of it has been quickly falsified.
How so?
I would say MOND is just postulating a different "unobserved" thing--an alternate theory of gravity, or an additional "field" that looks like an alternative theory of gravity, instead of dark matter. I don't think MOND has any advantage in the Occam's Razor department.
Or, to put it another way, the word "unobserved" is not quite correct. We have actual observations that can't be accounted for, as best we can tell, with our current theories of physics, without adding some new element. Dark matter and MOND are just two different choices for what new element to add. Neither one can say it's not adding anything new.
> Why is that so controversial? To me, again as an outside observer, it feels so counter-intuitive to _invent_ a new type of matter you can't observe than to just say that your calculation is close but not right and to start over
MOND is not just doing a different calculation that is claimed to be more accurate within existing physics. It is adding new physics. See above.
"Starting over" would be something like finding errors in the calculations based on existing physics (GR and the observed distribution of visible matter) that, when corrected, removed the discrepancy between observations and theory. Nobody has done that, and the calculations based on existing physics have been checked every which way, so it seems highly unlikely that there is an error lurking there that hasn't been found.
> why the scientific community came to accept the one that is accepted
My understanding is that MOND, in general, does not close the gap between observation and theory as well as dark matter does. The paper referenced in this article appears to be claiming that its version of MOND "catches up" with dark matter in terms of closing that gap. I haven't had a chance to read the paper in detail so I can't say how credible I think that claim is at this point.