[monero-xmr]

As a rule, when trying to convey information, I try to write and speak plainly. I try to avoid jargon.

I have found many academic papers in the faux sciences to be extremely dense and full of terms that are only known to the priests of that arcane subject (still subsidized by taxes as if the result is a common good).

If you have a point, say it. There is no need to write in legalese. When I see supposed research written like this, I assume it’s a grift written just for the tiny group of academics tenured in that subject, who review each others’ papers every year, buy each others’ books, and keep the perpetual motion machine of funding running until they hit retirement.

[maxbond]

It is a valuable skill to be able to communicate in plain language, and a valuable skill to be able to understand dense language. Communication requires investment from both parties. If you can't be bothered to look up their terminology, that's all well and good, it's you're time to spend, but your lack of investment doesn't imply that it's a grift.

May I ask if these "faux sciences" contradict your political or ideological positions, and is it possible that is the real issue here?

[bjelkeman-again]

Some journals I think have length restrictions on papers, leading to very densely written papers.

[throwaway167]

Vertical knowledge.