The title style "Evidence shows water does X" tends to make people think "there is concrete evidence that physical water does X", rather than "an abstracted model of spheres intended to mimic some aspect of water predicts that water might do X." When people read the article and find out the methods within don't support the conclusions they feel are presented in the title, they understandably become somewhat hostile.
As other comments note, the actual people doing this work are typically ~very~ aware the limitations of their models and that all results are best interesting fictions, but this typically does not make it into public-facing science communications.
Why the press release would be designed to encourage readers to inuit stronger conclusions that actually supported by the work is left as an exercise to the reader. How might this impact public trust in scientific institutions?
This place has lots of world class thinkers but is heavily overburdened with title janitors and tone police.
This is an actually interesting development but there’s zero discussion of it and 50 comments that want to split hairs about whether conclusions reached by simulations count as evidence or not.
Science discussion here is often lacking. I'm not sure where the right forum is for that :P
I think the topological bond analysis is actually really cool, and I think it might have wide-reaching implications in the study of liquids. I wonder if you looked closely at liquid phases without "long-range order", if you might occasioanlly see something resembling order if you looked through this lens rather than through the radial density function.
Your own comment also fails to discuss the topic, instead adding yet another opinion to the meta-topic "evidence" debate (that it is "splitting hairs").
The title style "Evidence shows water does X" tends to make people think "there is concrete evidence that physical water does X", rather than "an abstracted model of spheres intended to mimic some aspect of water predicts that water might do X." When people read the article and find out the methods within don't support the conclusions they feel are presented in the title, they understandably become somewhat hostile.
As other comments note, the actual people doing this work are typically ~very~ aware the limitations of their models and that all results are best interesting fictions, but this typically does not make it into public-facing science communications.
Why the press release would be designed to encourage readers to inuit stronger conclusions that actually supported by the work is left as an exercise to the reader. How might this impact public trust in scientific institutions?