|
|
|
|
|
|
by ziddoap
500 days ago
|
|
|
I edited part of that out, because I actually do broadly agree with you regarding science communication, and realized my comment was a bit stronger than I intended. Looks like you were quick on the quote! However, I think there's some serious slack to cut when you're viewing an article on the Institute of Astrophysics website, compared to reading Fox/CBS/whatever. Edit: In my re-reading of the article, I see they define it! I'm no longer sure what all this back and forth is even about. "This orbit places it within the habitable zone of the system, _meaning it is at the right distance from its star to sustain liquid water on its surface_" Do you want them to not use the term even when they define the term? |
|
|
Yes, I do. I think it's a needlessly confusing term to use in stuff intended for public consumption.
For a similar example of the issue, I often get radiology reports in my healthcare provider's portal. My dad is a radiologist and they're still quite scary/bewildering to read - they frequently use various terms of art for "looks fine and normal" that sound terrifying.
That was all fine when the intended audience was other doctors, but these days I can pull them up myself. I at least know enough to not freak out and ask my dad; many don't.
I don't want to see NBC/BBC/NYT articles using the term, and that means being careful with the sources from which they receive their info.