[connorgutman]

Regardless of the official definition, the word “habitable” is highly subjective. Extremophiles like tardigrades can survive being frozen and/or completely dehydrated. A planet with an eccentric orbit like this one could hypothetically support species capable of entering some form of extreme hibernation during part of their year.

[ziddoap]

>the word “habitable” is highly subjective.

Sure, but not in the context of "habitable zone" which is a specific term of art in astrobiology.

[ceejayoz]

> specific term of art...

And that's fine, but when communicating outside the speciality, I'd really like to see some other term used.

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/government/2025... for example says "Kansas tuberculosis outbreak is now America's largest in recorded history", where "recorded history" is apparently the CDC's "term of art" for "since 1950", which isn't what a layperson hears.

[ziddoap]

>And that's fine, but when communicating outside the speciality, [...]"

The IAC, where this article is from, is the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (literally the "Institute of Astrophysics")

That's about as far into the specialty as you can get.

[ceejayoz]

The IAC is communicating outside the speciality here, via a press release.

That's why the article's breadcrumbs say "Home > Outreach > News".

We saw the same issue during COVID - scientists talking to the general public often talk like scientists instead of science communicators, and that causes people to misunderstand. Fauci's "no evidence" (yet) masking prevents disease incorrectly becomes evidence masking can't prevent disease.

[ziddoap]

Not many uninterested laypeople are going to be browsing the IAC website for astrophysics news. People that are interested should probably familiarize themselves with the terminology commonly used in astrophysics.

Once it makes its way to PBS Space Time, sure, maybe you avoid terms of art. Or explain the particular definition when it is first introduced.

That's just my opinion anyways. I always try to familiarize myself with the common terms of art when learning about a new discipline.

[ceejayoz]

> Not many uninterested laypeople are going to be browsing the IAC website for astrophysics news.

But they will get linked to it, or read articles by reporters using it as a source without enough domain knowledge to make the distinction. I, after all, didn't seek this out - it just popped up on the HN home page.

> What seems weird to me is to be interested in a discipline, seek out news and conversation about it (from university press releases!) but then reject and/or argue about any terms of art that are established within that discipline.

I think science communication, post-COVID, needs to take a serious look at how to better explain things to the public. "Habitable zone" is simply one example of it.

[hajola]

While it's possible for conditions for life to emerge or sustain itself to be present beyond the habitable zone (e.g. there's likely a subsurface ocean orbiting the farthest plant from the Sun on Triton), afawk it is more probable that life forms in the habitable zone. That is the only one we have a data point for.

[ceejayoz]

A sample size of one tells us it it possible, but nothing about what’s most likely.

[hajola]

Well, we also know where we haven't found signs of life. So from that perspective we have more data.

[glenstein]

>Regardless of the official definition, the word “habitable” is highly subjective

Well, one constructive way to take it out of the realm of subjectivity is to put forward a specific definition.