It is necessary. We need to be precise with our language in science. Especially in studies like this, where what is perceivable at which level of processing is the major aspect being explored.

To say a face is just “invisible” would be vague but arguably appropriate since conscious sight involves your brain determining what is actively perceived and what’s processed in the background of consciousness. But “visible to the eye” is different concept altogether. It’s not just vague, but actually false for the headline to describe things that way.

It could just be a case of poorly written headlines choosing concision over accuracy, but imo that’s shouldn’t be acceptable in science journalism when it’s so core to the point being reported on. It’s a pedantic point but this is r/science. Headlines shouldn’t have falsehoods in them.

Sure that is true, but “invisible to the eye” is the phrase used here. No, the faces are detected by your eye. Photons hit your retina, engage the signaling cascade leading to your optic nerve firing. Same as any other visual stimulus that results in photons hitting your rods and cones. This would be impossible if the title’s phrasing were correct.

“Invisible to conscious visual processing” would be more accurate. It’s what happens after the signal is passed from your retina to your brain where the invisibility comes in.

Edit: for the record, the authors of the study titled it “Rapid processing of invisible fearful faces in the human amygdala”. So “go complain to the authors of the scientific article” is a pretty silly comment. It’s OP that added “to the eye” to that title.

This study didn’t even bother controlling one of the few variables they could and that make a massive difference. The soil media is completely different indoor vs outdoor. That’s not a minor fuckup. There’s really no justification not to control for that. Give both plants the same soil composition.

The title is misleading without mentioning that. It’s like studying how different types of exercises lead to more or less muscle mass gain among two groups, but forgetting to mention group A gets workout supplements and group B ate only potatoes the whole time. Bad science.

Are you stuck in a time loop in 2020 or something? Most people these days interact with each other normally, face to face, no masks. Thanks entirely to public health measures and the vaccines (and people who got them).

It’s a bit ridiculous to be so bitter about it in 2022 still lmao. And your goalposts are all over the place. We’re talking about going to a crowded event while knowingly Covid positive. To think that’s okay is either narcissism, science denial, or both.

These dipshits just want to stay mad even after the proven efficacy of vaccines and mask wearing ended the need for the things they’re mad about. Strange way to live.

Spreading a potentially fatal/long term damaging respiratory virus to children, who may or may not suffer symptoms but assuredly will spread it to the adults in their lives if infected, is actually a dick move.