I’m surprised by the amount of criticism and general push back this image has taken. I don’t remember anything similar from the LIGO nor LHC results.
The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
21–30 of 33 posts
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the actual definition of deception.
One of the definitions but not the only one. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive It’s quite common - in the UK at least - to say things like “It’s deceptively cold outside.” When the weather is cooler than it looks. Clearly we are not saying “The weather is not intentionally deceiving us.” Because that would imply sentience in something that isn’t. The same logic applies with this title as well.
I don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication.
The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#23I’m surprised by the amount of criticism and general push back this image has taken. I don’t remember anything similar from the LIGO nor LHC results.
... there's no criticism in this article.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the definitions but not the only one. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive It’s quite common - in the UK at least - to say things like “It’s deceptively cold outside.” When the weather is cooler than it looks. Clearly we are not saying “The weather is not intentionally deceiving us.” Because that would imply sentience in something that isn’t. The same logic applies with this title as well.
I don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication. The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
That’s why it’s an example for comparison rather than a literally the same sentence repeated ;)
You can apply the death by a thousand paper cut method of debate if you like but that doesn’t change the definition I also referenced.
The fact is the title doesn’t have to mean intention even if that’s the meaning you chose to read in it.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard it can be hard to see our center black hole because we are on the Galaxy disk so we have to look through a lot of light pollution and dust things to see it?
Yeah, I was researching further and found this[0] SE question. Seems to also say the same thing that there is a lot of "space dust" between here and there. [0]: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/30339/why-not-...
Sure, but at these long wavelengths the dust is effectively transparent.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#26The use of the word 'deceptive' in this headline is astonishingly disingenuous. I don't think the article intends to accuse the publishers of the image of deception, but the headline sure reads that way. The article is just trying to explain that imaging a black hole is inherently counterintuitive.
‘Deceptively simple’ would have been a better term probably.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication. The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
That’s why it’s an example for comparison rather than a literally the same sentence repeated ;) You can apply the death by a thousand paper cut method of debate if you like but that doesn’t change the definition I also referenced. The fact is the title doesn’t have to mean intention even if that’s the meaning you chose to read in it.
I think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different.
In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s why it’s an example for comparison rather than a literally the same sentence repeated ;) You can apply the death by a thousand paper cut method of debate if you like but that doesn’t change the definition I also referenced. The fact is the title doesn’t have to mean intention even if that’s the meaning you chose to read in it.
I think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different. In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
I got your point and said it’s irrelevant nitpicking that completely ignores the definition I linked to in my first post.
Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different. In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
I got your point and said it’s irrelevant nitpicking that completely ignores the definition I linked to in my first post. Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
I think you should look at your definition again, because I did not ignore it. In the example given by the dictionary for your prefered definition, they use the word to modify an adjectivized object. Although written in a different form, it is functionally equivalent to the form adverb-adjective object of the example you gave (i.e. "a deceptively curved line"). Hence, this is not 'irrelevant nitpicking' but attention to details that make your argument at best unconvincing.
To me, irrelevant nitpicking would be offering a secondary definition which is demonstrably not the definition the author or the majority of readers are using and which only applies under different context.
> Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
The OP indicated he had read the article and was objecting because the title did not match the content. If a reader has to perform grammatical gymnastics to make a title fit, it is at best poor writing and at worst deceptive.
Cheers
Re: The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
#30I’m surprised by the amount of criticism and general push back this image has taken. I don’t remember anything similar from the LIGO nor LHC results.
... there's no criticism in this article.
I wasn’t talking about just this article. Theres a movement to discredit the woman behind the algorithm and trump up a male researcher instead. But the word “deceptive” is in the title of this discussion, as well. I’m sure there are other examples and I’m not going to go searching.
Further, of course a photo of a black hole is going to take some serious science and technology. If it were possible to do directly more easily then this wouldn’t be news.