In order to do a rigorous explanation in some of the subjects involved, a lot of wording and context is necessary. I, sometimes trade, maybe in excess, rigor for more clarity. How should some complex issues be framed so that clarity is not lost while rigor is maintained? When I try to make a certain point I don't mind losing some rigor/truth as long as that lack of truth is not misleading by itself.
Imagine just having to explain ab-initio versus semi-empirical versus molecular mechanics (when that is really not focal point here)... Not to say that I don't even feel qualified to do that... Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
If a knowledgeable person picks up the side argument in the comments I (a non-scientist) can then see at least at what point they are diverging and hopefully follow along with some idea of how much the argument is a tweak to the main point or a direct confrontation etc...
btw, I would be interested in reading a discussion of the economics and sociology of science if anyone fancies it. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
