Thanks for demonstrating once again how poor your grasp of logic is, Higgsy.
First and foremost, why would you expect scientific paper citations in this thread? That’s silly. The average American taxpayer does not read scientific papers. They read articles put out by the numerous mainstream publications that report science news to them. That’s how mainstream science actually communicates to the public … through the type of sources I cited, not through bland, confusing, equation and math-laden, complicated, peer reviewed scientific papers. It is the sources I cite in this thread that are being used to convince the public to keep the money flowing to the tune of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars. Without these sources, there is no way that scientists could convince the public to continue supporting such massive, unproductive largess. So the language used in those publications is indeed what really matters here, not the language in the scientific papers. It’s language the scientists tacitly, if not overtly (through QUOTES they sometimes supply those publications) support.
Furthermore, let’s just examine my first link in this thread. It’s a “one step closer” example. The article cited is from PHYS.ORG. Aren’t they a credible source in your view? Or are you just dismissing them, and any source like them, from any further use as a credible source? For the record. Do you only read scientific papers for your *vast understanding* of science? Next, note that the*author* of the article is the University Of Chicago. Indeed, here’s the same article on the website of that university: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/twelve- ... d-galaxies . The “Physical Sciences” portion of the university website also has the article: https://physicalsciences.uchicago.edu/news/year/2022/ . Do you find that particular institution of higher learning unreliable when it reports the work of it’s professors? Do you dismiss all articles put out by universities to inform the public? Do you only read raw scientific papers to gain your understanding of science, Higgsy?
Finally, note that the article quotes Professor Alex Ji, one of (dozens?) of co-authors of the study that was being reported. Wouldn’t it be common practice to let the professor see the article where she's specifically quoted before publication, just to ensure it’s accuracy? If she did, why didn’t she complain? Can you find any source where Professor Ji, or any of the other authors, complained to the University of Chicago, Phys.org or any of the other score of mainstream sources that carried this article saying that they were misrepresented by using the phrase “one step closer” at the very beginning of the article? If not, then what is the basis of your complaint, Higgsy? And isn’t it possible that the reason the University of Chicago used that phrase is that Professor Ji or one of her co-authors used the phrase in passing when being interviewed about the study?