On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, joanna bujes wrote:
> Well, I can see that clarity might not always be desirable; in those
> cases, I would recommend encryption.
>
> For the rest, while I agree that we need to distinguish between the work
> of a historian/grammarian/philologist/linguist and that of a "political
> activist"... the work of any of these will be improved by clarity and a
> willingness to share and communicate ideas.
>
> In response to Kelly's wonderful post, I'd like to add that clarity is a
> quality not only of speaking but also of listening -- and you see, this
> whole interchange demonstrates the virtue of being clear. She expressed
> a crucial idea in very simple words, which would not have been any
> better or more authoritative in a more professional jargon. As a result,
> I was able to understand it, modify my own argument, and keep going
> forward...
>
> I think the left is often more concerned with being right than with
> being understood. This is not a trivial problem.
>
> Joanna
>
I think I see the disconnect here. People doing scientific research are not primarily concerned with being understood by everyone. For instance, in the social sciences, there is a statistical tool called structural equation modelling that requires an understanding of matrix algebra. Most people in our society can't do matrix operations, or even know what they are. Nevertheless, this statistical tool has been very useful to social scientists to analyze data and test theories. Can the results of this research be clearly communicated to the general public? Sure. Can the research itself be conducted with only the concepts and communicative tools used by the general public? Absolutely not.
Miles