Maybe what is necessary is some bigger picture of science.

For one thing, there should be a general understanding that models cannot be universal.

An objective point of view is an oxymoron.

If the map tried to include all the information in the territory, the signal would be lost back in the noise.

The models break down over infinities and disappear at zero. Everything in-between is relational.

Obviously this goes much deeper than science, considering the central premise of monotheistic religions is of some universal omniscient omniscience. Rather than a bottom up bubbling of activity, with no overall framing.

Epicycles were brilliant math, as a model of our view of the cosmos, but the crystalline spheres were lousy physics, as causal explanation.

All too often the models are patched, when they should be falsified.

Consider that if intergalactic space were to actually expand, the speed of the light crossing it should increase proportionally, in order to remain Constant!

Instead two metrics are being derived from the speed and spectrum of the same light. Given it is an expanding space and not tired light theory, the speed is till the effective denominator.

That is why current cosmology has such enormous patches, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark energy, to hold it together.

What if your accountant could just write in a figure and call it Dark Money, whenever he found a gap in the books? Certainly save the effort of going back and tearing them apart.

There is one way light does redshift over distance, as multi spectrum packets, since the higher frequencies dissipate faster. Yet that would mean we are sampling a wave front and the quantification of light is an artifact of its detection, rather than fundamental. Which would definitely not go over well with the high mandarins in the field.

As they say in science, change happens one funeral at a time.