This article is way too sanguine about this. Scientists putting forth a hypothesis, getting peer reviewed, getting published, and then having others fail to rep

This article is way too sanguine about this. Scientists putting forth a hypothesis, getting peer reviewed, getting published, and then having others fail to replicate their findings is absolutely a normal part of science. However, touting very surprising, very unsure results using the megaphone of media, is not science. It is clickbait. It is BS. And it is intensely damaging to science. What happens is there is a selection effect. The most surprising findings are the ones that are most likely to be touted by the media. However, the most surprising results are the most likely to be wrong. So over time, you end up with the result that much of the "science" touted by the mainstream media ends up being wrong. And we cannot just blame this phenomenon on the media. Many times it is the institutions that are supporting the research that are contacting the media and putting out press releases and getting on twitter with very clickbaity summaries of the research. It is great for the scientist. It makes them famous for a day. And as with most stories, the original story gets a lot more play than the correction. However, it is very damaging to our society. The regular person sees science as a stream of exciting results that are later proven wrong. All the while people are shouting, "This is fine, because this is how science works." And it damages trust. Imagine if you went to your doctor for a routine blood test and the doctor came back and said, "You have an elevated white blood cell count. This could mean you have cancer." Then a couple of days later, you got called back in to be told, "Well actually, the count was increased because you likely had a cold. But this is how medicine works. One test can suggest something, but different tests can give a different explanation." If this scenario happened on a regular basis, your confidence in medicine would really be messed up. If we present science as this ever changing, always being proven wrong entity, then how can we ask people to depend on "science" and make potentially very expensive and inconvenient adjustments to their lives such as with COVID or climate change?