> Sorry, but I’m not sympathatic to the problems of journalists who decide to tell a distorted story because they are either too lazy or don’t have enough space to tell the right story.
It's popular in other fields. There are a lot of articles that try to explain quantum mechanics using wrong unintelligible metaphors, but for me it's not clear what part of the unintelligibility is due to the bad metaphors and what part is due to the real unintelligibility of QM.
(For some lucky coincidence, other topics I know like Harmonic Analysis are not popular topics for wrong metaphor writers.)
> Sorry, but I’m not sympathatic to the problems of journalists who decide to tell a distorted story because they are either too lazy or don’t have enough space to tell the right story.
It's popular in other fields. There are a lot of articles that try to explain quantum mechanics using wrong unintelligible metaphors, but for me it's not clear what part of the unintelligibility is due to the bad metaphors and what part is due to the real unintelligibility of QM.
(For some lucky coincidence, other topics I know like Harmonic Analysis are not popular topics for wrong metaphor writers.)
Anyway, if you want to read a version of the article with more technical details and less discussion about the journalism, I recommend the second article linked there: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/research...