[cratermoon]

I believe Feynman understood that he was oversimplifying, and I believe he was able to do because his reason for reading the paper was not the same as the reason another sociologist might have. Thus a sentence like, "The individual member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels", does, to a non-expert, mean "people read", but to another sociologist of a researcher in related fields, phrases like "individual member", "social community", and "visual, symbolic channels" would terms of art. That means an expert in the field could read "social community" and it would mean, cognitively, an entire set of concepts in the field.

In short, jargon matters. People here can talk about functional, procedural, and object-oriented programming because each of the three words has more than just the dictionary meaning - to those of use in the field. In the same way we can talk about linear algebra and know it doesn't mean "algebra on lines".

Yes, it's possible to write scientifically without jargon and wordiness, but it's a lot of effort and takes much more space to say "a group who follow a social structure within a society (culture, norms, values, status). They may work together to organise social life within a particular place, or they may be bound by a sense of belonging sustained across time and space"[1]

1 https://othersociologist.com/2013/11/20/sociology-of-communi...

[chefandy]

Visual symbols could be anything from written words to police uniforms. It's not oversimplifying— it's flat-out wrong. It would be like reading

Expressions representing numbers may be combined with an expression representing a primitive procedure (such as + or *) to form a compound expression that represents the application of the procedure to those numbers.

And an English professor haughtily responding, "you know what that means? 'Computers compute!' This SICP book is just a pile of jargon that could be dramatically simplified!"

His dismissal revealed nothing about the topic, but a whole lot about how so many in the "hard" sciences view others. Don't understand the text? It's the text's fault! For I am a real scientist, and if I don't understand it, it's not understandable!

He might have been a genius, but he should have stuck to subatomic particles and left exploring human behavior up to the people who'd done the prerequisite reading.

[PoignardAzur]

Well, maybe, but you can rationalize arbitrary amounts of pointless jargon that way.

Besides, in the example Faynman gives the simple sentence is actually shorter. Maybe that shorter sentence loses some information that the jargon carried, but Occam's razor suggests the writer was just trying to sound smarter.

[mattkrause]

Some bad writing certainly comes from trying to sound “academic” or “scholarly” but there’s more to it than that.

A lot of research involves lumping and splitting: what underlying properties do these seemingly-different share (or vice versa). For example, reading text is just one possible instantiation of a “visual symbolic channel.” Traffic lights, road signs, gauges and dials, logos, and clocks also carry information the same way. If you want to discuss “reading and reading-like activities”, you may want some kind of umbrella term.

Plus, you may want to contrast them with other ways of sharing information: non-symbolic systems that literally depict the item in question (photos on a picture menu, for example) or using a different sense altogether, like church bells for telling time.