What is the problem with Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms?

Click For Summary
The discussion critiques a Reuters article for its poor physics reporting, highlighting significant inaccuracies and lack of clarity in scientific definitions. Participants express frustration over the article's claims, such as mischaracterizing protons and electrons as hadrons, and using sensational language like "mysterious, invisible material with anti-gravitational power." The conversation emphasizes the need for better editorial standards and fact-checking in media, especially when reporting on complex scientific topics. There is a consensus that such errors undermine public trust in news sources and raise concerns about the accuracy of other reported information. The thread also suggests that hiring knowledgeable individuals, such as undergraduate physics students, could improve the quality of science journalism. Overall, the discussion reflects a broader concern about the media's responsibility to provide accurate and comprehensible scientific information.
  • #31
The best part of Yahoo Answers is that the person who asked (and hence doesn't know) gets to decide the "CORRECT" answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
inflector said:
The best part of Yahoo Answers is that the person who asked (and hence doesn't know) gets to decide the "CORRECT" answer.

Oh now THAT explains a lot... I did not know that. What the **** is Yahoo thinking?! *imagines the vast emptiness of the Yahoo corporate intellect*
 
  • #33
No yahoo answers is way fun best thing on yahoo honestly.
 
  • #34
rhody said:
Phrases like: scream high school or college intern to me, combine that with lackadasical review and you get what you see in the article.

How would you define dark energy? That definition seems very good to me.
 
  • #35
RE:
A mysterious, invisible material that has an anti-gravitational power

I think this is misleading for several reasons:

1) "Mysterious" as a word adds no scientific descriptive value but serves to sensationalize the definition.

2) "Material" implies matter rather than energy.

3) "Anti-gravitational" implies that there is such a thing as anti-gravity.
 

Similar threads

When Does Particle Population Size Shift from Microscopic to Macroscopic?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Programs What can I do with a Chemistry BS and a minor in Physics?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Three inertial particles: Separating the twins from the paradox
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
I What would a hypothetical quark-quark collision yield?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
A "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
A What is wrong with particle acceleration based fusion?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Admissions Do I have a shot at top HEP-th programs?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
I New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Is Physics Just Another Form of Storytelling?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K