It's great to understand the probability of other earth-like planets, but to distort information to make it sound like they've found them now only puts it into the minds of common people (common being those that don't follow science other than the headlines they see in the news) that science was proven wrong when it is explained to them that these "earth-like" planets are not really earth-like at all.

Science knows these new planets are not earth-like and anyone with any knowledge of astrophysics/astronomy understands the difference, but other people do not. As far as they are concerned they believe what the news says "Earth-like planet found" and then when its shown that it is NOT earth-l...

It's great to understand the probability of other earth-like planets, but to distort information to make it sound like they've found them now only puts it into the minds of common people (common being those that don't follow science other than the headlines they see in the news) that science was proven wrong when it is explained to them that these "earth-like" planets are not really earth-like at all.

Science knows these new planets are not earth-like and anyone with any knowledge of astrophysics/astronomy understands the difference, but other people do not. As far as they are concerned they believe what the news says "Earth-like planet found" and then when its shown that it is NOT earth-like then in their mind they think scientists got it wrong and it only builds a mistrust of science.

To say that this recent find is "earth-like" because it shares the same orbit distance with its sun as our earth does with our sun is like saying basketballs are edible because apples are too and both are round.

When reporters write the story for shock or wow value by make exaggerating the claim it does no one any good (other than the coffers of the paper). Even today I've heard people grumble over the fact that they've read stories of "earth-like" planets that are later proven not to be earth-like. It just makes it sound like the astronomers were wrong in their announcement when they were not.

I don't think I'm presenting this well and explaining what I mean clearly. I guess I think the finds are fantastic on their own merits and the exaggerated hype just adds confusion and mistrust.

Scientists know that there is a difference between proven, and unproven theories, statistical and clinical evidence, and where findings may lead to, and where they are now, but the distinctions can be important to get credible evidence. too often the distinctions are fine, and definitely not made clear in some news reports. I can often make the mistake of not making a distinction clear for the sake of space, when there needs to be more clarity. I've thought that news is sometimes drafted to present information, the way people want to see it, rather than the way it is, and it is easy for scientists to think and journalists to pretend that the difference between theory and fact is common sense...

Scientists know that there is a difference between proven, and unproven theories, statistical and clinical evidence, and where findings may lead to, and where they are now, but the distinctions can be important to get credible evidence. too often the distinctions are fine, and definitely not made clear in some news reports. I can often make the mistake of not making a distinction clear for the sake of space, when there needs to be more clarity. I've thought that news is sometimes drafted to present information, the way people want to see it, rather than the way it is, and it is easy for scientists to think and journalists to pretend that the difference between theory and fact is common sense, forgetting readers do not have access to the same information.