> show<p>This word is great for headlines, but bad science. We're uncovering tiny fragments of a vast history and extrapolating the full story as best we can from those few clues we have. We can't ever be <i>sure</i> we're right, only that we're maybe a little more right than before. Next week, someone will find a new piece of evidence that could rewrite the entire story all over again (wow, the Beringians had dogsleds and could cover fifty miles per day over snow?[0]).<p>And this matters in science writing because the general public see words like "show" and "proves" and take it as truth, unbreakable. And next week when we find that new piece of evidence, that article will use the same strong terminology and the reader who isn't science literate will lose trust in science- last week they said X was true, now they say Y is true? Are they lying or making this all up?<p>Nothing is certain. We're just trying to be less wrong over time.<p>[0]I made that fact up, so that we're all clear here- dogs weren't even domesticated that far back. But hey, what if, right?