Running through this in my head again and again, and editing 500 times along the way, apologies. I'm done now:
You believe that it is narrowly true gravitational wave researchers did this, like a kid saying they "wrote their essay" in response to whether they "did [completed] their homework"
I believe it is wholly true.
I believe we agree on the narrow truth that they are gravitational wave researchers.
I believe we disagree on the wider truth.
I believe you believe its a wider lie, in that it indicates they used gravitational wave-style techniques in this endeavor.
I believe it is widely true, because they're using the specific techniques that I saw astrophysicists use in grad school.
Is it possible you saw "Bayesian", assumed that was the extent of their expertise applied, then noted that it has no relation to their expertise, since that's entry-level stats, not physics?
Someone I once considered a friend, handed out invitations to a christmas party he was holding. While nothing he told us about the plans were strictly false, it turned out it was a direct marketing campaign. And there were no sales conducted at the event, instead he called everyone who showed up a week later to see if we were interested in anything we saw. He deliberately crafted a hook to be misleading to his target audience, even though nothing he said was false. I now consider him deeply untrustworthy and have severely limited my contact with him.
I believe the author of the title deliberately crafted a title that would be misconstrued by his target audience into believing something false, even though it was technically true.
I believe this isn't lying, but I also believe it's not meaningfully distinct from lying.
The goal of the authors of the PR is to promote a narrative. In this case, the PR intends to increase funding for gravity wave research by imputing its utility in another field.
From The ELements of Style, Strunk and White, omit needless words. Dropping "Gravitational waves" from the title conveys the same information.
The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White:
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
The authors used the LIGO Scientific Collaboration's (open source) Bilby package to do the nested sampling analysis. So this was a drop-in use of this GW software to analyse the antikythera data. There is quite a close analogy between the 22-dimensional antikythera analysis, with its intrinsic and extrinsic parameters, and the ~15 dimensional spinning binary black hole analyses done in the GW world, again with intrinsic and extrinsic parameters. That's the GW connection, and it may not be so clear from the reports.
Yeah, so after collecting enough opinions from enough people, I'm 100% confident saying there isn't truly anything specific to GW here. When I use the ROOT library from CERN to analyze my molecular dynamics data, I'm not doing particle physics, I'm using ROOT as a general purpose library.
It doesn't really matter. The work is not exceptional, it doesn't shed new light on anything, and really only got the coverage it did due to clever use of key words and hype by the press release authors. In other words, like 90% of popular science.
You believe that it is narrowly true gravitational wave researchers did this, like a kid saying they "wrote their essay" in response to whether they "did [completed] their homework"
I believe it is wholly true.
I believe we agree on the narrow truth that they are gravitational wave researchers.
I believe we disagree on the wider truth.
I believe you believe its a wider lie, in that it indicates they used gravitational wave-style techniques in this endeavor.
I believe it is widely true, because they're using the specific techniques that I saw astrophysicists use in grad school.
Is it possible you saw "Bayesian", assumed that was the extent of their expertise applied, then noted that it has no relation to their expertise, since that's entry-level stats, not physics?