In a recent article in The New York Times, Andy Revkin talks about the whiplash effect:
When science is testing new ideas, the result is often a two-papers-forward-one-paper-back intellectual tussle among competing research teams.
When the work touches on issues that worry the public, affect the economy or polarize politics, the news media and advocates of all stripes dive in. Under nonstop scrutiny, conflicting findings can make news coverage veer from one extreme to another, resulting in a kind of journalistic whiplash for the public.
An understanding of how science works sheds a lot of light on this problem.
Scientists work at the turbulent interface between what we know and what we do not know. At that turbulent interface, scientists are constantly putting forward new ideas to extend the scientific community's understanding. These new ideas are then tested by other members of the scientific community. Bad ideas wither and die while good ideas survive. Eventually, after an idea has survived replication and other testing long enough, it comes to be accepted (a scientific consensus exists that this idea is correct).
For example, quantum mechanics was put forward to explain puzzling observations at the atomic scale. After concerted testing by the scientific community, a consensus has grown up that quantum mechanics is a correct description of nature.
Once consensus has been reached on an idea, the turbulent interface moves on to the next unanswered question. Arguments about the fundamental correctness of quantum mechanics, for example, are no longer interesting, and the scientific community no longer works on that. Instead, the community is working on some of the unanswered details of quantum mechanics.



