• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hubble Finds 'Surprising' Activity on Jupiter's Moon Europa

What the abstract of the paper actually says:

...Out of ten observations we found three in which
plume activity could be implicated. Two show statistically significant features at latitudes similar
to Roth et al., and the third, at a more equatorial location. We consider potential systematic
effects that might influence the statistical analysis and create artifacts, and are unable to find any
that can definitively explain the features, although there are reasons to be cautious. If the
apparent absorption features are real, the magnitude of implied outgassing is similar to that of the
Roth et al. feature, however the apparent activity appears more frequently in our data.
 
What the abstract of the paper actually says:

...Out of ten observations we found three in which
plume activity could be implicated. Two show statistically significant features at latitudes similar
to Roth et al., and the third, at a more equatorial location. We consider potential systematic
effects that might influence the statistical analysis and create artifacts, and are unable to find any
that can definitively explain the features, although there are reasons to be cautious. If the
apparent absorption features are real, the magnitude of implied outgassing is similar to that of the
Roth et al. feature, however the apparent activity appears more frequently in our data.
What did you just say about my momma? Any hoots, that's what I normally say when someone speaks in a language where my comprehension isn't hitting on all cylinders.
 
What the abstract of the paper actually says:
What did you just say about my momma? Any hoots, that's what I normally say when someone speaks in a language where my comprehension isn't hitting on all cylinders.

What it says is that they think that maybe they've convinced themselves that these aren't detector artifacts, so are very cautiously examining the data as if they are real plumes. What the journalists say is: "Hubble Finds 'Surprising' Activity on Jupiter's Moon Europa".
 
What did you just say about my momma? Any hoots, that's what I normally say when someone speaks in a language where my comprehension isn't hitting on all cylinders.

What it says is that they think that maybe they've convinced themselves that these aren't detector artifacts, so are very cautiously examining the data as if they are real plumes. What the journalists say is: "Hubble Finds 'Surprising' Activity on Jupiter's Moon Europa".

Journalistic headline writers are not permitted to use the word 'evidence'. Check http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/isaacs/client_edit/Headlines.html

must be correct (in fact and implication).
must connect to ordinary readers (be easily understood).
must attract attention (using interesting, active words).
must set (or match) tone of the article.

Obviously ordinary readers don't know anything about 'evidence'.

Following the above is why Trump is so successful using "I heard ...."
 
Back
Top Bottom