You seem to be arguing two opposing points: both that there is a lack of certainty that would help the general public understand, and that somehow the informati

You seem to be arguing two opposing points: both that there is a lack of certainty that would help the general public understand, and that somehow the information is being shaped by how the general public understands. Argue one point or the other, and you might get a more cogent response. As it is, I'm left thinking that science is built on limited understanding, stating only what the evidence to hand supports, and that the problem with the understanding of the general public is that they want certainty now when there are only more questions and areas to research for now. Research should not extrapolate far beyond what can be proven, regardless of how the result is filtered and distorted by consumers of social media.