In the generally annoying vein of journalists writing about science comes this. All of the items Mr. Horgan, apparent journalism school graduate, cites as regress are signs of progress. I think this points to a huge gulf between science and journalism. In journalism, realizing your proposed narrative is wrong means that you're back to where you started; in science, realizing your proposed narrative is wrong means you've made a giant leap forward in understanding.
Just think: how often do we see articles about, say, city government where the author has as its main point that there is no narrative?
The key point is that frequently in science knowing more means we realize we know less.
I actually see one of Horgan's observations:
What I found fascinating was the issue's overall tone of caution rather than the traditional boosterish enthusiasm.
as progress in itself. "Boosterish enthusiasm" is, in my view, bad for scientific progress.
On to the examples ...