> Their choice of terminology could be better, but strictly is compatible with the definition of physics. Even if you'd argue that "everything can be called ph

> Their choice of terminology could be better, but strictly is compatible with the definition of physics. Even if you'd argue that "everything can be called physics", which is not how the natural sciences are organized, using some specific terminology that has a very exact meaning in the physics as it is seen today, but giving it the opposite and misleading meaning is plainly wrong, unless one wants to support the misleading of the casual readers. The article title and terminology are misleading, messaging the public completely the opposite of what the natural sciences agree of.