[DanielBMarkham]

Yes, agreed. I hate to say it, but this is a crap article. The point of the original NYT article was that they had something they could not identify, not that there was some new form of matter. All this consists of is a journalist (and hopefully editor) using the wrong phraseology and SA jumping on it like an eager five-year-old on the mechnical fire engine at WalMart.

SA used to have a series, I think it was called something like the "Citizen Scientist" or maybe the "Amateur Scientist". This article is a new type of journalism I've noticed taking off in the last decade or two that I'll call the "Asshole Scientist". It consists of self-righteous and assine authors taking pot-shots (some warranted, some not) at whatever cultural item is in the current zeitgeist.

It's great for gathering clicks. Nothing like a bunch of folks sitting in their living room with a smug smile on their face, scrolling through a short journalistic snack-food, feeling like they're in with the cool kids. But it doesn't do much in the way of showing people how to have reasonable public conversations. Or even how to read charitably.

Note that I'm not upset with the content of the article, just the tone. A bit of tweaking and it'd be fine. But that would defeat the purpose. This kind of article is all about tone.

[iconvoid]

What is the distinction between "material that you can't identify" and a "whole new type of matter?"

Unless something is interfering with the efforts to identify a given substance, there aren't a whole lot of options left besides it being something "new" (which is to say hitherto unknown).