"Best explains our current observations" is tautological because you can imagine invisible mass for any system to explain arbitrary observations provided you are only modeling the system instantaneously (note galactic vs human timescales). Dark matter fanatics want to assert the supremacy of a system that is literally derived by fitting residuals using computational models, but anything can be explained that way using results of a simulation if you wanted.

I could elaborate a complicated system of invisible mass to explain geocentrism if I wanted. Doesn't make it a good model.

You will note I didn't actually say "dark matter is wrong" but rather "there is nothing to the very foundations of the model itself". I'm not arguing against dark matter so much as for a theory of substance.

> actively working on my PhD

Not paid enough to afford an armchair, you mean? :)

> it best explains our current observations

I always figured dark matter to be nonsense because nobody ever listed any said observations, but only ever parroted that line. Even xkcd is guilty of it https://xkcd.com/1758

So better start giving out examples or you won't ever convince anyone. I'll start. The one that convinced me is the Bullet Cluster collision where it seems that regular matter collided and slowed down but something else which contributes most to the overall mass passed right through without interacting at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to...