With the substantial amount of anomalies, paradoxes and unexplained phenomenon in mainstream cosmology, one must question whether the modern approach in this field is sufficient. In most fields of science, development proceeds according to the scientific method: A phenomenon is observed, a hypothesis is made, scientific test(s) are conducted and the simplest answer is sought after. However, this does not appear to be the path that modern cosmology is following (as demonstrated by the attached figure).

Subjects such as naturalness and fine-tuning have been highly debated in the areas of quantum field theory and cosmology. The argument is that if a theory must be fine-tuned, then there should be an underlying physical reason for such values. However, the vast majority of fine-tuned theories lack explanation and only seem to exist for the purpose of reproducing reality in terms of ad-hoc mathematical formulations. Thus my question is really three parts.

• Do you believe the modern approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed?
• Is a fine-tuned theory that is fundamentally wrong, but can still produce correct predictions useful?
• Was Richard Feynman correct when he stated “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”?

Examples in cosmology:

• Redshift versus Luminosity Distance: Requires accelerated expansion via dark energy
• The Faint Blue Galaxy Problem: Requires disappearing galaxies
• Dark Matter Cusp Problem: Requires unnatural arrangements of dark matter in galaxies
• Local Galaxy Counts: Requires a local "hole" that extends beyond 0.05z
• Horizon Problem: Inflation theorized
• Size of Distant Objects: Unexplained or significant evolution
• Planck Sigma_8 Problem: Hypothetical sterile neutrinos proposed
• Hemispherical Power Asymmetry: ?
• Directional Dependence of Cosmological Constants: ?
• The Dark Flow: Theorized interaction with another universe
• CMB Cold Spots: Massive voids proposed