I am working on some very smart things to say here. Really. Meanwhile, there's 
I was listening to a discussion with Umberto Eco on his phenomenal book The Name of the Rose. [Real Audio here] At one point in the interview, Eco answers a question on the numerous Latin phrases in the book spoken by the monks that were left untranslated. The question was: why weren't they translated. Eco answers by saying that the Church has done well - has been remarkably successful for the past 2000 years - by conducting all it's affairs in Latin. He was, of course, implying (for comic effect) that his book is a success due to the Latin phrases.
Ensuring people don't understand what is said is a certified religious strategy to keep the masses in line. The Church isn't the first to use it. The main ingredient in the Opiate of Masses was discovered long before there was any Church, Mosque or Temple. Every tribe has had its Shaman who spoke in tongues. In a way, this indicates why scientific inquiry is such an anathema for a religious mind. Obscurantism and willful blindness is essential for dogmatic beliefs.
On the other hand, it must be said that not all scientific writing are models of clarity. Sometimes authors overestimate the reader's knowledge and interest, sometimes they get carried away by their own impressive mental capabilities, sometimes they are too immersed in one field and pontificating on another, and sometimes they are just not qualified (like me, sad, but true. Although, as a feeble defense, I'll say this: I write not to explain science but to document a personal world view).
So, dear reader, I apologize unreservedly for the obscure things I wrote in the past and for those that I will undoubtedly write in future.
