Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Bad Science Reporting

If you graduated from middle school you should be able to spot the ridiculous statement contained in the following text:

Sentence 1:
"Astronomers report an unprecedented elongated double helix nebula near the center of our Milky Way galaxy, using observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope."

Sentence 2: (same article)
"Most nebulae are either spiral galaxies full of stars or formless amorphous conglomerations of dust and gas -- space weather."

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060315175226.htm

It is no wonder the public is as ignorant as it is.

At one time, before the early 20th century, astronomers did not understand the distinction between planetary and galactic nebuli. There was speculation, but until the big scopes saw first light these little patches were a mystery. Some astronomers still use the term nebula to refer to a galaxy or an intra-galactic dust cloud.

In light of this I am not sure what "ridiculous statement" is contained in these statements. They both seem to be straight forward true declarative statements. ???

Strike two for science education.

Can anyone see what is horribly wrong with the article?

When I read the whole article something seemed off. Something about how gravity was affecting the stars to cause the double helix. I admit to it being a long time since middle school and not keeping up on my science so the two statements do not seem odd to me. The article itself does seem off.

nope. don't see it. illuminate me.

The subject of the report is a nebula in OUR galaxy.

The comment "Most nebulae are either spiral galaxies ...." is both irrelevant and incorrect when written anytime after the early 1900s.

The nebula is OUR galaxy is NOT a galaxy and most nebula, in fact ALL nebula, are mixtures of gas and dust. They have nothing whatsoever to do with galaxies other than that they exist within one.

I caught that, but I just figured this was some different usage of the term.

It sounded like it was the author of the article, but the scientist himself who used the terminology It's pretty common for scientists to be a little free with their use of language.