I feel I've missed something in this article.<p>"Science, after all, isn’t merely about advancing information — it’s about advancing understanding. Its task is to disentangle the opinions and the claims from the facts in the service of truth. But beyond the “what” of truth, successful science writing tells a complete story of the “how” — the methodical marvel building up to the “why” — and Randall does just that."<p>I saw a lot of speculation and little substance. I couldn't even appreciate why dark matter had such a profound impact on the theory of the meteorite that hit the Earth.<p>Can someone please elaborate why this book is worthy of making the front page? I'm sure there was something between the lines I missed.