"Today we learn most of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter"

"But what are dark matter and dark energy, teacher?"
"Uh...we don't actually know"

Should science become more humble in its assertions, or at least in how it popularizes them?

Popsci is and always has been cancer

>>>/worship/

But admitting the limit of your knowledge is a sign of integrity, not the other way around.
Any cultish belief would instead replace "we don't know" with a bunch of bullshit.

No. There's nothing wrong with those statements, OP.

We know that there must be something in our universe that is causing phenomenon that we easily and readily observe. However, we haven't seen this something, so of course we cannot describe it.

There's nothing inherently flawed with either of those.

there is something wrong: focus.

A scientist will look powerful saying wht the universe is made of when in fact his real knowledge is far smaller.

Uncovering what these stuff are might reduce even more the extent of this knowledge.

So questioning Science hubris in necessarily religious antiracionalism? Or do scientists constantly hide the uncertanty in their work for the general public? Was Thomas Kuhn a priest or a bishop?

Just because we call a Photon a photon says nothing about the nature of the photon, and we see that most of the energy in the universe is invisible and not made of stuff we normally deal with. Once we figure out what it "is", we will give it a name, but that doesn't mean we actually understand it beyond how to quantify it.

First off you're full of shit. We don't teach contemporary cosmology in school. It's too complex for kids.

Second what the fuck do you mean by
>A scientist will look powerful saying wht the universe is made of
The sentences in your OP means "most of the universe is made of stuff we haven't observed", which isn't in any way a contradictory or overreaching statement.

The real problem is that you're really too stupid to hold an opinion. If someone tells you they don't know everything you'll dismiss it as "hubris", while if they claim to hold all of the answers you'll listen religiously.
I mean really, kys.

On the contrary. they should be more open about not knowing or knowing without too much certainty.

To make a noun ("dark energy") out of a process creates the ilusion you know what you are dealing with.

And scientists certainly rejoyce in this ilusion, because it enables them to appear on Tv and to influence politics or just be admired.

>To make a noun ("dark energy") out of a process creates the ilusion you know what you are dealing with.
Its a description of an unknown. Have to call it something