4 ms·

This may be better expressed as "When scientists publish research, they usually have some hypothesis (or hypotheses) to explain it, or maybe a theory they were

• xwolfi 5y ago
  No, it s an admission by the journalist he believed scientists were like modern priests, and an expression of his surprise when he realized that Science destroyed comfortable certainty to instead provide more questions. It's fine for many people, but some like this writer, still can't shake the idea the world must have omniscient oracles.
• kubanczyk 5y ago
  Scientists do not hope to prove theories (except mathematics, where they have axioms, so they can prove things - sometimes). Scientists may propose a novel model. Then they check whether the model predicts reality better than the old model within some boundaries. Rinse and repeat. Although a model will probably seem to be "explaining" reality, this is mostly misleading and by all means unnecessary. Pop-sci will explain anything to anyone anyway, they can even explain Hawking radiation without showing even one equation.
• N1H1L 5y ago
  In fact confusion is good. It shows honesty, and is way more exciting to the scientific community. I think however the intersection and pop culture and science is what makes us queasy about scientific confusion. Often, while we don't know somethings completely, we know them quite well enough (anthropogenic global warming from carbon emissions, lung cancer from cigarette smoking etc). However, if there is scientific uncertainty it often becomes an invitation for quacks and charlatans - which is why scientists are sometimes so hesitant to speculate in public.