First, complexity for its own sake. This includes using special terminology and vocabulary to express concepts that could be as easily explained with normal language.
Every field does this.
5. Finally, the confidence with which a theory is expressed can be an important cue, especially where the theory relates to generally low-confidence fields of knowledge (philosophy, psychology, economics and the social sciences being chief amongst them). A theory which is measured, qualified, and expressed with uncertainty invites questions, and forthright expressions of disagreement or lack of understanding. But such statements undermine the social dynamics buttressing the incomprehensibility bluff. Contrastively, a confident statement of views is a cue that the author knows precisely what they are talking about.
RE 1: yes, but it’s a matter of degree. Technically every scientific theory is somewhat unfalsifiable (you can always invent saving hypotheses). But some are more falsifiable than others (some lend themselves to saving hypotheses, don’t make clear predictions in the first place, etc.) so falsifiability is still a useful criterion of theory choice. Likewise here with IB and needless jargon.
RE 2: This may just be my current writing style! I appreciate any constructive comments on how it might have been phrased better.
I read it as:
Hedging invites attacks
Confidence implies expertise
And then the concluding sentence is missing: “Therefore, seemingly confident speakers are actually more likely to be bluffing” (this is widely, but not universally, known [#link “it is known” by Zvi])
Every field does this.
The phrasing on this one is a little weird.
RE 1: yes, but it’s a matter of degree. Technically every scientific theory is somewhat unfalsifiable (you can always invent saving hypotheses). But some are more falsifiable than others (some lend themselves to saving hypotheses, don’t make clear predictions in the first place, etc.) so falsifiability is still a useful criterion of theory choice. Likewise here with IB and needless jargon.
RE 2: This may just be my current writing style! I appreciate any constructive comments on how it might have been phrased better.
I read it as: Hedging invites attacks Confidence implies expertise
And then the concluding sentence is missing: “Therefore, seemingly confident speakers are actually more likely to be bluffing” (this is widely, but not universally, known [#link “it is known” by Zvi])
The link is
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BNfL58ijGawgpkh9b/everybody-knows