I was checking a paper that was posted on Twitter where everyone seemed to be so enthusiastic about, so I had a short check on it. Here is the first line: "Post-Cartesian frameworks, including developments within the embodied and enactive cognitive sciences, complex systems science, and dialogical approaches to cognition, strongly emphasize the inherently indeterminable nature of the person and the inextricably entangled relationship between person, other, and technology." And it goes on with: "Automation, on the one hand, is something that is achieved once a given process is complete, that is, it is understood, and discrete such that it can be implemented from a set beginning to a set finish reliably. People and social systems, on the other hand, are partially-open, always becoming, and inherently unfinalizable (Bakhtin, 1984). Automation as complete understanding, therefore, stands at odds with human behaviour, which is inherently incomplete, making machine classification and prediction futile."

Is it me, or is this paper obscurely written? And why didn't anyone seemingly notice it, given that it was both peer-reviewed and published? Why were people so enthusiastic about it, instead of admitting they just didn't have a clue of what it is about (or at least to understand the arguments presented in the paper)?

Why is there still so much academic gibberish?

Related links: http://www.skeptophilia.com/2014/02/academic-gibberish.html

Link to the full paper: https://direct.mit.edu/artl/article/doi/10.1162/artl_a_00336/101872/The-Impossibility-of-Automating-Ambiguity

Edit: My mistake! It might not be peer reviewed. But I'm still wondering if this is very common in academia, or if it is dependent from field to field?