"Most scientific progress has come from the "fringes" of the mainstream, that which we might consider orthodox knowledge"
What was before was a science that was just fledgling (protoscience) with the scientific method clearly defined in the 19th century. Although before that the humanity used tools that resembled principles of the scientific method.
Currently, the mainstream understanding of the universe is actually mostly pseudoscience and BS contradicting scientific discovery, starting with including religions or hippy mumbo jumbo beliefs.
You didn't answer my questions.
Exactly! "Give me one miracle, and I will explain the rest" is a quote that comes to mind that I heave heard someone say about Big Bang cosmology. Black holes, Dark Matter/Energy are all ah hoc concepts introduced to explain the deficiencies of gravity (hence the now new introduced concept of "modified gravity"). Plasma cosmology simply argues that we don't need all of that "fancy stuff" when we already know a force that can explain most of what we observe to a high degree: plasma and electricity. In fact, Plasma cosmologists modeled a galaxy formation only with the current known forces (gravity also included!) and ended up with a spiral galaxy! I would call that a pretty successful test (I can provide the paper if you wish).
To answer your questions: I refuse to climb into the boxes you made, so it is "none of the above".