Not that the reader is wrong, but doesn't understand what's being said. No reason to to overstate the situation, Augustus.I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when 'science talks gibberish' it is because the reader doesn't understand. The 'science' is right, it's just the reader that is wrong.
Boy, if this isn't a pile of manufactured crap. Thing is, just by your juvenile renunciation here its evident you've never read an "academic journal" in your life, much less understood one enough to pass judgment.Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed 'science' much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.
. . . . . . .
At least you're keeping true to character. Assassination by contrived failings this time. It wouldn't be hard to concluded you actually believe this baloney, but in as much as you've strung so many distortions on one line it's clear you've given your imagination free rein to its bias. Thing is, Augustus, when you overstate your case it quickly looses all veracity. The mark of a truly rank amateur. Sad, but also amusing.When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.
Ah, a tempering qualification, but too late. Way too late.In terms of language though, scientists aren't half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication.