And a lot of what's confusing is understanding the jargon if it's in an unfamiliar field, and what all the symbols represent.
One of the first things I do when I start reading up in an unfamiliar area is create a glossary of terms and symbols, so I can actually understand what I'm reading.
That's not entirely true even if it has that effect. It can be useful to convey a lot of information to people with comparable expertise in a concise way.
If I'm talking to colleagues I use it. If I'm not or I'm not sure, I don't. Issue comes when people aren't able to say what they mean without using the jargon. Sadly those people exist.
Patent jargon, on the other hand, is supposed to scare you off. Even patent lawyers have trouble decoding that shit.
Jargon does serve a useful purpose in general, including gatekeeping, but it can also serves as circumlocutious abstruse obfuscation for power-hungry liars. The MIT paper on "COVID Skeptics“ you posted is the clergy straight up lamenting that the lay man can read scripture.
I heard somewhere that if you can't explain something to a layman, you don't truly understand it enough. I've always tried to have that level of understanding if I seek to speak with any authority on a subject.
Agreed. While a lot of science is quite difficult, it's worth just reading the damn papers and comparing the data to the conclusions.
It's really not too bad even for laymen. It's just a bit confusing until you get used to it.
And a lot of what's confusing is understanding the jargon if it's in an unfamiliar field, and what all the symbols represent.
One of the first things I do when I start reading up in an unfamiliar area is create a glossary of terms and symbols, so I can actually understand what I'm reading.
The jargon is supposed to scare you off. They are degenerate clerics in white robes speaking dog latin.
That's not entirely true even if it has that effect. It can be useful to convey a lot of information to people with comparable expertise in a concise way.
If I'm talking to colleagues I use it. If I'm not or I'm not sure, I don't. Issue comes when people aren't able to say what they mean without using the jargon. Sadly those people exist.
Patent jargon, on the other hand, is supposed to scare you off. Even patent lawyers have trouble decoding that shit.
Jargon does serve a useful purpose in general, including gatekeeping, but it can also serves as circumlocutious abstruse obfuscation for power-hungry liars. The MIT paper on "COVID Skeptics“ you posted is the clergy straight up lamenting that the lay man can read scripture.
I heard somewhere that if you can't explain something to a layman, you don't truly understand it enough. I've always tried to have that level of understanding if I seek to speak with any authority on a subject.
I prefer jargon to terms overloaded beyond any useful meaning.
Just try to guess if number 2 is normal.
A phone is very useful for that, and a good wiki site helps with the rest. Heck, most pros with PhDs do it that way.
Can't land a space vessel? Have you checked your phone?