Popular science: Five clues to common overstatements

Lazy interpretation creeps in when science is popularised.

Here are some clues to help to detect overstatements:

1. "Because" 

any article that uses this word is veering from the truth. We are living through a Crisis of Attribution; that is, we have no secular theory to explain why a follows b, only that they are associated more often that expected by chance. Our theories are not built to answer the question: "Why?" or "How?" only to make predictions and test for associations.
Suggested alternative: avoid altogether

2. "Scientific" 

Scientists are aware of what we don't know which enables them to ask a discriminant question: ie one that can be tested in our present state of knowledge. The adjective 'scientific' conveys nothing more than: 'I want you to believe this.'
Suggested alternative: "doubtful"

3. "Facts"

In the Words of Friedrich Nietsche: "Es gibt keine Tatsachen, nur Interpretationen" 
'There are no facts, only interpretations.' 
Human perception is notoriously susceptible to error, blue sky is grey to some people and my 'blue' is almost certainly completely different to yours.

Suggested alternative: avoid altogether

4. "Proved" and "Validated" when combined with the 'S' word.

Suggested alternative: "suggested"

5. "Brain chemicals" and "Neuroscientists" and "raises the level of"

In science, theories are contested, try finding two 'neuroscientists' from varying fields who agree with each other; the neuro-anatomists barely talk to the neuro-chemists and as for the neuro-electrophysiologists and the brain scanners, they rarely even see each other.

It's a tough life being a populiser of science, though I can't fault Brian Cox, particularly as I don't understand astrophysics.