[CraigS]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

But beware of theorists and their computer models......for years, theorists were trying to "make" massive stars in their computers, and the stars just wouldn't form in these simulations, due to the many barriers that exist to gravitational contraction, e.g. magnetic fields, photon pressure, angular momentum, etc.
Yet obviously, nature has no trouble making massive stars!!
Yes, the computer models didn't work......so astronomers who study massive star formation are waiting for observations of sufficient angular resolution in order to be able to see how the task is accomplished in the real world.

I have no problems in recognising that sloppy science exists, as does incomplete knowledge and misleading modelling. This in no way invalidates the process however.
So, in the case you cite, failure to produce a successful star, extended knowledge of how not to make a star, and sparked an enquiry which encourages the development of more objective, verifiable observations.
Knowledge and understanding has also been gained from a "negative" result, without having to revert to philosophy based 'answers'.

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Similarly, it must be possible that those cosmological simulations that can replicate the observed pattern of the "large-scale structures" in the universe (such as voids, walls, shells, etc.) are missing something.

Incompletion is part of the next iteration ..

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Ostriker, for instance, suggested a large number of small "mini bangs" to clear matter out of the voids, and to make galaxies form only on the walls of the voids (as they have done!).

Sure .. a testable result derived from a postulated question .. no problems !

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

In relation to the dark matter idea, which I regard as proven, at least at the level of certainty that constitutes proof in science,

I'm not as convinced as you about this, but that's neither here nor there ..

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

I can sometimes understand why people are looking for other factors that might cause the ongoing structure formation in the universe......in a recent informal study of some supercluster structures, I found many galaxies that sit by themselves in splendid isolation, with perhaps only one or two small companions;
so the question that suggests itself is: how can anything form at all, given the ultra-low mass density of some of these regions of space? (dial "DM" for dark matter ?)

Try on that the structures might spontaneously emerge, as a result of the interacting behaviours of all the individual components .. which are themselves simply following all the laws of and forces in physics … mass density doesn't have to be the only factor 'causing' self-organisation of structure arising from complex systems.

Cheers