Some basic ideas about physics and astronomy remain so mysterious, and their explanations so flexible, they may lead some to question whether they should be called "hard sciences."
A record-breaking structure in the universe "defies theory," the news said, ignoring that theory has been defied for decades since smaller large structures were found (the lumpiness problem).
In historical sciences, observable phenomena are often used as indicators of past phenomena. Some recent examples show how these can mislead researchers.
Physics is supposed to be the king of “hard science” because of its precise mathematics, predictability and falsifiability. When transferred off our planet, however, it seems speculation is the order of the day.
Astronomers have detected a star that should not exist. Current theory cannot explain the composition of a star in the constellation Leo. This “freakish star,” moreover, is probably not unique. What is it, exactly, that modern star formation theory does explain?