Regularly you can see examples on this forum of people who do not understand that scientists use language in a specific manner different from the 'normal' man, or the theist, leading to much confusion. I think it would be nice to discuss this topic so we can use it as a reference and maybe some people will learn something. The scientists is so cautious, he must not believe what he is saying himself Scientists often uses words such as 'may' or 'possibly' or 'could be' in conclusions. This is not a linear indication of how true a conclusion is. That is how scientists write. Scientists know this and read sentences that seem ambiguous to the layman differently. They look at the context. What is the author presenting. How does this fit within current doctrine. How strong are his results. Is he trying to criticize the work of others (criticism of other work is often done very politely in articles). I will try to find a suitable open access article to analyze at a later date.