>How have you heard [heat] defined [other than "mostly through a solid"]? Usually something like: Heat moves via matter or energy. For example, air, water, ele

>How have you heard [heat] defined [other than "mostly through a solid"]? Usually something like: Heat moves via matter or energy. For example, air, water, electromagnetism... It seems to add no value to arbitrarily say "mostly solids" rather than just say it moves via a medium. At worst it's misleading, especially when said directly by scientists, not simply written by pop-sci journalists. >>...[it's a purely hyperbolic statement] >Obviously. And I do believe it was meant to be taken as such. Hyperbole is part of language, but it's used more often by politicians. I consider it counterproductive for researchers to speak this way relating to their results. Others seem to agree: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/study-hyperbole-is-increasing-in-science/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/study-hyperbole-is-in... >>Is that because quantum mechanics wasn't being taught 25 years ago >[20 years ago it didn't seem like something new] Right, that was a rhetorical question. The high level concepts behind it haven't been new to PhD level physicists, even more than 25 years ago (Wheeler). >They [used] an anecdote...shouting through a vacuum...[you said] it was hyperbolic, [so how does it make sense to question the "depth" of their thinking] No, I said their present day quote was hyperbole, not the PhD defense. During the latter, I would not consider it professional for the panel to ask hyperbolic questions or for them to be answered that way. Not in the context of academic research, when potentially years of work and someone's future may be on the line. I get that they want press, attention, maybe investment. Indeed, hard work yielding good results deserve recognition. However in my opinion that kind of self promotion and exaggeration is better served from unattributed copy and PR initiatives, rather than by direct quotes from the lead researchers.