The devious trick behind the most sensational science headlines

"It happens all over the internet and news media every day: a new scientific study, making an extraordinary-if-true claim, gets elevated to prominence. You've probably seen many just over the past month, including: None of these things are true, of course, despite the assertions of the researchers who originated these claims. But unless you're a scientist yourself - and, in particular, a scientist well-versed in these aspects of physics and astronomy - it's not readily apparent where these claims have gone wrong."

"In fact, there's actually a simple formula to elevating this kind of work to popular prominence: work that ranges from mediocre-but-speculative research to completely unsupported claims that bear no relation to the actual data. All you have to do is make an extraordinary claim that defies the current scientific consensus, backed up by a mix of quality data and unsupported/unsubstantiated assertions or speculations,"

"The first thing you have to understand is what the pinnacle of modern science is: the current state of scientific consensus. This is often presented, in popular media, as a fossilized and incomplete edifice that must be challenged and smashed: usually by a bold, revolutionary idea that's just as out-of-the-box as heliocentrism was to a geocentric worldview, as quantum mechanics was to a purely classical-and-deterministic worldview, or as relativity was to a Newtonian worldview."

Sensational scientific claims often combine legitimate data with unsubstantiated assertions or speculation to create a plausible-looking narrative. A common recipe is: present an extraordinary claim that contradicts scientific consensus, mix credible evidence with unsupported interpretation, publish the result, and issue an overstated press release. Modern media and communication systems amplify such claims into viral headlines and public attention. Scientific consensus represents the pinnacle of current knowledge and is rarely overturned by isolated, poorly-supported claims. The resulting cycle rewards sensationalism and obscures where the claims actually went wrong. Critical evaluation and scientific literacy are necessary to distinguish genuine breakthroughs from sensationalized errors.

Read at Big Think