[enkid]

That's how science works. There's a mystery and science purposes a hypothesis resolving that mystery. If a hypothesis is clearly more consistent with the evidence then other hypothesises, it wins out. If not, there continues to be a debate.

[nitwit005]

My point is that people aren't sticking to tested ideas when communicating with the public. They're throwing untested ideas at them, or sometimes multiple incompatible untested ideas at them.

[pixl97]

And so? Are the 'science police' going to show up an arrest them?

There is a reason that scientists communicate with other scientists via papers and a process called peer review and not typically via the media. That is, to distill the topic down to a casual level requires many levels of abstraction and tend to be 'incorrect but interesting' as the media does not sell truth, but instead it sells advertising by making things interesting.