"Have scientists found the source of immortality?" "Have scientists invented flying shoes?" Just because it's a scientific article does not mean it's any less applicable.
The headline could easily have been "New data shows possibility of" or "New theory suggests" or countless others.
Your examples are ridiculous. The answer to the question is not "No". The question has no answer right now other than "maybe, we'll see". Not everything is so black and white.
Yes, there are other possibilities for the headline. No, the silly law about internet headlines does not extend to articles with real information about real science where real questions are posed and currently unanswered.
If the answer is "We don't know", then the article should not be posting headlines as questions they don't have an answer too. Unless they are just fishing for traffic.
The website linked here in a Scientific American blog. Their job description is probably two words: "ask questions". Questions are extremely important.
> If the answer is "We don't know", then the article should not be posting headlines as questions they don't have an answer too.
Am I feeding a troll? This is silly. Publicly asking questions that you don't have an answer to is perhaps the single most important feat humanity has ever achieved.
Just calm down about the question, yeah? It's important, and it's not "fishing for traffic". It's a real, serious question.
You can do that far better by applying it to itself ("Can any headline which ends in a question mark be answered by the word no?") or with a question requiring a non-yes/no answer ("How many Higgs bosons has ATLAS really found?").
