Rob H
EF5
I think this is an issue with semantics.
It really is. I find it more of an amusing quirk, but it's really evident when speaking/typing to someone in the sciences. Between you and Stan, I can easily count a dozen discussions where semantics were brought up. It's strange to me, because as a software engineer I usually get people telling me I'm being pedantic

I completely understand why words are important, especially in the sciences, but for the general public or even policy-makers that kind of non-committal, CYA, precise language is at best ignored, and at worst turns off the reader to the content. In this case, I agree that the headline is a gross oversimplification and could use some tweaking. I'm certain that these conspiracy theorists would have taken any research about gravity waves and tied it into HAARP or chemtrails or government weapons somehow even with a more accurate article.
I might tell someone "every time I see horse shoe vortices, I cap bust" but they'll infer that I don't literally mean 100% of the time with zero exceptions. To keep communication succinct and useful in most situations, it's critical that we're able to summarize, condense, imply, and infer on both ends of the communication. Long story short, I like discussing things with you guys and wouldn't ever want you to change, but hope that you understand where I'm coming from as well.
Last edited by a moderator: