According to the standard cosmological model, 27 % of the Universe consists of some mysterious dark matter, 68 % consists of even more mysterious dark energy, whereas only less than 5 % corresponds to baryonic matter composed from known elementary particles. The main purpose of this paper is to show that the proposed ratio 27 : 5 between the amount of dark matter and baryonic matter is considerably overestimated. Dark matter and partly also dark energy might result from inordinate extrapolations, since reality is identified with its mathematical model. Especially, we should not apply results that were verified on the scale of the Solar System during several hundreds of years to the whole Universe and extremely long time intervals without any bound of the modeling error.
This paper deals with the testing capabilities of the modern methodology of science in the specific problem area of cosmology. I propose to monitor the responses of selected competing methodologies (Kuhn, Lakatos) on two questions: 1) To what extent are modern methodologies able to cope with the problem area as a descriptive task? and 2) to what extent are modern methodologies able to cope with the problem area as a prescriptive task? In both cases it appears that the tested methodologies find themselves in a quandary when trying to submit answers. The conclusion of the article attempts to show that this quandary remains, in a certain form. However, this does not mean that methodology should give up its fundamental role, ie. the role of being a heuristics in achieving knowledge