Regardless of the official definition, the word “habitable” is highly subjective. Extremophiles like tardigrades can survive being frozen and/or completely dehydrated. A planet with an eccentric orbit like this one could hypothetically support species capable of entering some form of extreme hibernation during part of their year.
And that's fine, but when communicating outside the speciality, I'd really like to see some other term used.
https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/government/2025... for example says "Kansas tuberculosis outbreak is now America's largest in recorded history", where "recorded history" is apparently the CDC's "term of art" for "since 1950", which isn't what a layperson hears.
The IAC is communicating outside the speciality here, via a press release.
That's why the article's breadcrumbs say "Home > Outreach > News".
We saw the same issue during COVID - scientists talking to the general public often talk like scientists instead of science communicators, and that causes people to misunderstand. Fauci's "no evidence" (yet) masking prevents disease incorrectly becomes evidence masking can't prevent disease.
Not many uninterested laypeople are going to be browsing the IAC website for astrophysics news. People that are interested should probably familiarize themselves with the terminology commonly used in astrophysics.
Once it makes its way to PBS Space Time, sure, maybe you avoid terms of art. Or explain the particular definition when it is first introduced.
That's just my opinion anyways. I always try to familiarize myself with the common terms of art when learning about a new discipline.
> Not many uninterested laypeople are going to be browsing the IAC website for astrophysics news.
But they will get linked to it, or read articles by reporters using it as a source without enough domain knowledge to make the distinction. I, after all, didn't seek this out - it just popped up on the HN home page.
> What seems weird to me is to be interested in a discipline, seek out news and conversation about it (from university press releases!) but then reject and/or argue about any terms of art that are established within that discipline.
I think science communication, post-COVID, needs to take a serious look at how to better explain things to the public. "Habitable zone" is simply one example of it.
I edited part of that out, because I actually do broadly agree with you regarding science communication, and realized my comment was a bit stronger than I intended. Looks like you were quick on the quote!
However, I think there's some serious slack to cut when you're viewing an article on the Institute of Astrophysics website, compared to reading Fox/CBS/whatever.
Edit: In my re-reading of the article, I see they define it! I'm no longer sure what all this back and forth is even about. "This orbit places it within the habitable zone of the system, _meaning it is at the right distance from its star to sustain liquid water on its surface_" Do you want them to not use the term even when they define the term?
> Do you want them to not use the term even when they define the term?
Yes, I do. I think it's a needlessly confusing term to use in stuff intended for public consumption.
For a similar example of the issue, I often get radiology reports in my healthcare provider's portal. My dad is a radiologist and they're still quite scary/bewildering to read - they frequently use various terms of art for "looks fine and normal" that sound terrifying.
That was all fine when the intended audience was other doctors, but these days I can pull them up myself. I at least know enough to not freak out and ask my dad; many don't.
I don't want to see NBC/BBC/NYT articles using the term, and that means being careful with the sources from which they receive their info.
While it's possible for conditions for life to emerge or sustain itself to be present beyond the habitable zone (e.g. there's likely a subsurface ocean orbiting the farthest plant from the Sun on Triton), afawk it is more probable that life forms in the habitable zone. That is the only one we have a data point for.
