Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but since we're discussing the literal grand scheme of things a 10% discrepancy only looks good because the previous discrepancy was 100+ orders of magnitude. It's still a significant variance, and the extent of its improvement only underscores the fact previous estimates covered a range just shy of the set of all numbers, which still inspires little confidence.

I've stated my reasons: It was a problem with the particle zoo in the '50s and '60s, and again with GUTs in the '80s and '90s (and to some extent, I believe, remains one). Those are just the recent/contemporary examples a layman can quickly cite. It wasn't something banished with geocentrism and other superstitions during the Age of Reason as you previously suggested. It's ultimately a problem of human psychology that I don't think can be evolved past in a few centuries. Ideas are more readily disseminated now, and to that extent more likely challenged, but man himself has changed little if any. We're still susceptible to the same institutional and disciplinary errors, even where particular institutions and actors have given way to others.

None I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean no accurate ones of which NO ONE is aware exist. See my reply to your last response on GUTs. I'm not saying we should ignore the best extant theory that fits the evidence to pursue hypothetical better ones, I'm just saying we should keep our eyes open for them as we evaluate existing theories, and for flaws experiment and observation indicate in those theories that should spur us to look for others. If an existing theory consistently matches the data we're seeing obviously we should stick with it for as long as that remains so, but not automatically EXPECT it to remain so, or confine investigation of the "dreaded anomaly" to ways we can reconcile it with our favorite theory.

My problem is that people did more than that: One group of people came up with a hypothesis and, before it was proven or even tested, another group of people came up with ANOTHER hypothesis based on the first. They took a very new and completely untested theory for granted, and made it the foundation of an even newer one. It worked out in the end, and that's great but, IMHO, science shouldn't encourage building a house of cards.