I was checking [a paper][1] 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 link: http://www.skeptophilia.com/2014/02/academic-gibberish.html 

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?

[1]: https://direct.mit.edu/artl/article/doi/10.1162/artl_a_00336/101872/The-Impossibility-of-Automating-Ambiguity