The man has an opinion on how fog is often used to obscure real information. Given the amount of bullshit I've seen from the more rarified strata of academia, he has a definite point. It should be noted that this is not confined to academia. Believe me, the technological field has its own offenders, and God knows politics uses squid ink by the tankerfull. As to the specific case he's talking about, I didn't look into it and don't plan to.

In my life I have seen damn few major concepts that could not be distilled into language perceivable to the intelligent layman. Many science and sociology writers have made good money doing just this. I'm afraid verbal density is most often used to disguise an idea that's either invalid or unpalatable. It's the "if you can't see the emperor's clothes, well, I guess you're not that smart" trick.

You are right that a person's ideas are what need to be attacked, but their method of presentation is a valid target, too. Couching an argument in unnecessary bullshit is the equivalent of shining a bright light into someone's eyes during a chess game, and should be treated the same way.

I like the "squid ink" metaphor, and will probably steal it for my own use.

As for lawyers, you may be right. Lord knows I wouldn't vote for one. ;)