Semantics is a waste of time.
There are relatively few absolutes. Almost anything and everything is relative.
Using “Black Hole” in the given context, what is being described is an enormous amount of matter existing in an exceptionally minuscule volume of spacetime (I disagree with the singularity concept attributable to incomplete/imperfect mathematical models). Or, a gravity well with the mass of several to billions of times that of our sun.
Relatively anything in our reality is open to reinterpretation as our knowledge and technology advance, which is always a given from my point of view.
I'm a skeptic as far as dark matter and dark energy is concerned.
Exactly, and the less absolute we know, the less certain we can be of our conclusions. Black Holes are a good example of that.
Using “Black Hole” in the given context, what is being described is an enormous amount of matter existing in an exceptionally minuscule volume of spacetime (I disagree with the singularity concept attributable to incomplete/imperfect mathematical models)
But you treat the first part of your statement as if it is true. The reality is that you are uttering the theory, which remains unproved. That's my point.
We can't fully understand Black Holes without understanding the singularities. That remains part of the lesser known or understood characteristic. For, the evolution of Black Holes is apparently in conflict with standard quantum evolution model, as it seems to rule out the sort of increase in disorder that seems to be required when Black Holes are present. But this really isn't my field.
I 'm really just talking about the truth. Black Holes are still in the working theory stage. Too many unknowns still exist.