[hnlmorg]

You say that and I guarantee you that people who have dedicated their career to that particular topic will say those “science communicators” are technically incorrect due to the generalisations and/or analogies made in the explanation.

It’s such a common behavioural tendency with general audience publications that someone coined a law for it (the name of which I forget but I’m sure someone else on here can reply with it).

[zztop44]

Those people who have dedicated their career to a narrow topic can also be wrong. Not so much about the facts, but in assessing whether or not certain compromises or analogies that don’t map 1:1 matter for the purposes of what is trying to be communicated.

[hnlmorg]

That’s exactly the point being made