Is there a name for the fact that articles that start with "Why are ...?", that promise to explain some curiosity, tend to almost never give a satisfying answer? (Usually because it just reports on some small incremental research paper that's still far away from shining a clear lucid light on the bigger picture.)

Betteridge's law doesn't apply and clickbait is too broad.

Another part of the phenomenon seems to be that the comments here on HN is rarely about the actual content of article itself, but about peoples personal thoughts on the subject. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if an article about incremental research about dreams would be titled "Why do we dream?", would not contain a satisfying answer in the body of the report, and would on HN mostly consist of peoples own experiences and thoughts about dreams (instead of about the specifics of the research).