On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 5:05:35 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

Certainly no-one can claim that Hawkins has not had the opportunity to
plead his case. Also, even if it turns out that his claims about the
Milky-Way halo are correct, there are still arguments against his claim
that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of compact
objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses.

You forgot to mention that there are also other arguments FOR "his
claim that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of
compact objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses".

What we need to get a definitive answer to the dark matter problem are
not beliefs based on prior assumptions and tentative empirical
findings. What we need are new observations that are more diagnostic
and less easily hand-waved away than past observations. Given the
promise of forthcoming technical advances like SKA and future
microlensing efforts, there is hope that strong empirical guidance
will not be too long in coming.

Until then it would behoove us not to marry any hypothetical class of
dark matter candidates, nor to spurn others simply because they
conflict with our expectations. It's ok to root for favorites, but
let's have a level playing field. Hawkins' paper eloquently makes the
case that this this scientific balance and objectivity has been
missing in dark matter research for quite awhile.

[Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh]