Slashdot Mirror
Should Journalists Embrace Jargon?
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.'"
There was a BBC article by Will Self on this recently also.
In defence of obscure words
Ralf
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russel
Yes. It would help. Ever been to court? I mean either to watch a case, or in a legal capacity. It's a general question not directed at you. I have on several occasions, if I hadn't been in the court, then reading the news paper the following day, I wouldn't have known that the article I was reading was even remotely linked to the case I had spent the day watching. It was that far removed from reality.
Om, nomnomnom...
Comes down to audience and how much investment in time said audience is willing to make.
If it is a casual interest article, I'm probably not looking to learn a whole new vocabulary.. I'm looking for enough information to facilitate the value I hope to get out of it. As a trade off for this accessibility, I accept that I'm not getting the full story.
On the other hand if I am reading to learn something, then yeah, give me a quick overview of the jargon and then go nuts. You lose a lot of information trying to explain things with analogies and common phrasing .. and if I'm really trying to get something, I accept that I have to educate myself a little on the language that is to be used.
At the very least, keeping in mind who the audience is and what you are actually trying to drive home is important. When you try to write something to please everyone you usually end up with something that doesn't do the job for anyone.
If your audience is highly technical, and knowledgeable in the field then speak the language. If they are not, then bring it down to their level. It's common sense.
Not everything can be dumbed down.
And not everything should be dumbed down.
Here's a lengthy rant from Richard Feynman when being asked about magnets (how do they work?)
Watch the first minute, then skip to 3m 56s
He more or less says that some questions are too complicated to be explained in terms "that you're more familiar with".
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"God particle" comes from Leon Lederman. He wanted to nickname the Higgs boson the "goddamn particle", but was blocked by his editor. So while it is annoying, it did come from a prominent physicist.