The old "crop circle" craze fanned the curiosity of many, till humans were filmed making them. Now, scientists have a different circle mystery, and they're stumped.
Some evolutionary papers are filled with verbs like arose, emerged, and originated. Do these convey scientific understanding, or are they veils concealing ignorance? Is it like saying "abracadabra" to say something "arose" by evolution? A recent paper about sophisticated metabolic enzymes in plants is a case in point.
In historical sciences, observable phenomena are often used as indicators of past phenomena. Some recent examples show how these can mislead researchers.
For an enterprise that has failed for 50 years, SETI gets good press. There are many worthy enterprises on the planet; what is it about SETI that gets honorable mention with nary a critical word?
A psychologist has determined that belief in hell reduces the crime rate. A finding like this might belong in the "Well, duh" category, but more interesting is the interpretation.
The so-called "scientific method" (if there is such a thing) has undergone dramatic changes throughout history, but there is one constant that can be relied upon: the myth of scientism.
Planetary scientists cautiously suggested the possible presence of an equatorial lake on Saturn's moon Titan. You wouldn't know that from the headlines.
"Heidelberg Man" has been a modern name imposed on certain fossil humans that have been unable to speak for themselves. Now, their bones appear to overlap with Neanderthals. But don't modern humans have Neanderthal DNA? Do the distinctions make any sense?