Comments on: In Defense of Jargon

By: testdomain

testdomain — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:00:45 +0000

Normally I do not read post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to try and do so! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, quite great post.

By: bikeboy389

bikeboy389 — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:02:47 +0000

The trouble with this whole argument, as I see it, is that so many (if not most) habitual users of jargon are unsuited to or uninterested in the task of determining the needs of the audience. In fact, most people are terrible at this. Empathy is difficult.

Instead of defending jargon, I think you could make a much better case by calling for considering and understanding our audiences and the problems our writing is supposed to help them solve.

It’s ultimately the same argument, more or less, but less likely to have the unintended consequence of encouraging some people to read part of the article and conclude that “you’re just like all scientists who can’t relate to humans,” or think “woo hoo, we have permission to use as much jargon as we want.”

By: Byron

Byron — Sun, 06 May 2012 03:54:36 +0000

It seems to me your are agreeing with the point I was making that it is necessary to match the language and explanation to the audience.

By: Uncle Al

Uncle Al — Sat, 05 May 2012 23:32:17 +0000

INADEQUATE NMR is better than “Incredible Natural Abundance Double Quantum Transfer Experiment Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometry.” A layman considers what passes peer review as Abstract and Conclusion. The soft sciences solicit test animals’ opinions – imbiber beware.

Physical theory having more parameters than letters in its name is suspect, e.g., Standard Model vs. 26, Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model vs. 120. The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Mode negatively elevates the ridiculous to the supine with seven Higgses and a fifth neutralino. The results are in…

http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
then
http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/

By: Matt Cole

Matt Cole — Sat, 05 May 2012 21:18:34 +0000

I see your attitude in scientists all the time where I work…you can’t explain to an average person the importance of your work, yet you still demand the financial support of the average person’s tax dollars to support your jargon. I think science would be better served if scientists took the time to better explain the importance of their work to the average person, not the other way around.

By: Nicky Nichols

Nicky Nichols — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:10:07 +0000

You should ask GCHQ to explain it. They do a lot of research into how people talk and write compared to how they think about what they are doing.