Should Journalists Embrace Jargon?

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @12:04PM from the use-your-words dept.

ananyo writes "In an opinion piece for Nature, science writer Trevor Quirk argues that researchers use jargon to 'capture the complexity and specificity of scientific concepts.' Avoiding jargon might mean that a piece ends up easier to read, but explaining a jargon term using everyday language 'does not present the whole truth,' he says. 'I find it troubling that the same antipathy that some writers express towards jargon has taken root in the public's general attitude towards erudite language. I submit that this is no coincidence. People seem to resent not just specialized language, but any language that requires a large degree of labour to understand, appreciate and use,' he writes. 'The world increases in complexity every day, and we should not let shrink our capacity to describe it.'"

3 of 184 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It will get worse by dbIII · 2012-07-25 15:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Pulling it into string theory will give you the "god string" which will be shortened to g-string.
1. Re:It will get worse by Mateorabi · 2012-07-25 15:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Only someone with a p-brane would think that was funny.
  
  --
  "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Re:The use of jargons by Troyusrex · 2012-07-25 23:48 · Score: 4, Funny

I'll be that pedantic grammar slashdotter, but it's actually "incorrectly." Wrongly denotes more along the lines of the subject being incorrect, rather than the action being taken. Hence, incorrectly.
Stop using your grammar jargon on us! You are preventing me from using my core competencies to leverage mind share in the forum space!