[mewpmewp2]

How does it "support" or "lend support", wouldn't it be more correct to say "it doesn't rule out" and which likely seems a bit pointless statement so why bring it in, in the first place?

Support seems like an active statement kind of like if we realize that 2 + 2 != 5 it lends support to 2 + 2 = 6.

[vinceguidry]

You're doing an awful amount of nitpicking. I didn't find the abstract that hard to read. There's a big discussion in the scientific community about whether consciousness involves quantum effects or not, and this nudges that debate more into quantum territory. Unless you are part of that community, you're going to be reliant on others to characterize these kinds of results. That characterization was helpfully provided in the abstract, which is a good thing because otherwise we'd need to rely on profit-motivated journals to do it for us.

[mewpmewp2]

> You're doing an awful amount of nitpicking.

I'm absolutely not. I have a problem with science wording such as "suggests", "linked to", and "supports", since many times these findings could be just a complete coincidence or chance, but the way the titles are worded is implied it's actually somehow making a case for that. It's not explicitly falsifying the idea of A, but it doesn't mean it's supporting it either. Maybe it also supports the idea that God is behind all of that and is just trolling us.