This was a problem in STEM going back to when I was in Uni almost thirty years ago. And even further, historically. Isaac Newton famously popularized the scientific cant as a way to keep understanding of the art from overwhelming the peasantry, and he got the idea from Alchemists.
That being said, I've noticed over the past decade that Wikipedia is especially bad about piping in every new fad-term, and it seems new buzzwords with too many syllables keep entering the scientific lexicon every other month. I have a Physics degree from the turn of the millennium so I would naturally assume I would be able to read any random Physics-related article and, if not know the wheelhouse of its exact subject, at least recognize all of the words. But I don't. And quantum physics has lost its lexical mind IMO. Renaming 'rotational inertia' to 'moment of inertia' in classical physics jargon was bad enough to upset me, and I do NOT know what the QM and HEP guys have been smoking for the past three decades. That's my anecdote.
BlueRoguesDevel•3m ago
That being said, I've noticed over the past decade that Wikipedia is especially bad about piping in every new fad-term, and it seems new buzzwords with too many syllables keep entering the scientific lexicon every other month. I have a Physics degree from the turn of the millennium so I would naturally assume I would be able to read any random Physics-related article and, if not know the wheelhouse of its exact subject, at least recognize all of the words. But I don't. And quantum physics has lost its lexical mind IMO. Renaming 'rotational inertia' to 'moment of inertia' in classical physics jargon was bad enough to upset me, and I do NOT know what the QM and HEP guys have been smoking for the past three decades. That's my anecdote.