fine, the jargon of a "social group" of science is a red flag?

sure, theres lots of nasty side effects of how academia is run, rewarded, etc..

but thats not because of precision of language employed.

do you want scientists recycling the same words and overloading ever more meanings onto ever more ambiguous words?

I don’t think we disagree. I’m not taking issue with scientists having jargon, which I agree is good and necessary (though I think the less analytical academic disciplines, not being rooted in fact, have come to bear many similarities to state-backed religions; and I think they use jargon accordingly). I’m pointing out that I specifically intended to exclude professionals by scoping my statement to “social groups”. Primarily I had in mind religion, politics, certain social media sites, and whatever you want to call movements like capital R Rationality (I have personally duck typed it as a religion).

▲

whilenot-dev 7 days ago | parent [-]

> I’m pointing out that I specifically intended to exclude professionals by scoping my statement to “social groups”.

I think your argumentation is a generalization that's close to a rationalist fallacy we're discussing:

> a social group with a lot of invented lingo is a red flag that you can see before you get isolated from your loved ones.

Groups of artists do this all the time for the sake of agency over their intentions. They borrow terminology from economics, psychology, computer science etc., but exclude economists, psychologists and computer scientists all the time. I had one choreographer talk to me about his performances as if they were "Protocols". People are free to use any vocabulary to describe their observed dynamics, expressions or phenomena.

As far as red flag moments go, the intent to use a certain terminology still prevails any choice of terminology itself.

	▲	woooooo 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think there's a distinction between inventing new terms for utilitarian purposes vs ideological and in-group signalling purposes. If you have groups talking about "expected value" or "dot products", that's different from groups who talk a lot about "privilege" or "the deep state". Even though the latter would claim they're just using jargon between experts, just like the scientists.