I distrust fine distinctions. It's one reason I'm not trying to exist mainly in academia. When you're good with words, it's easy to make things sound important, or make nonsensical or speculative divisions into two categories sound amazingly smart and well-oiled and tuned into the currents. Then thanks to your way of sounding smart and picking a wonderfully subtle (and probably inconsequential) difference to elaborate on, anyone not ideologically against you is unlikely to think that what you're saying is pure bollocks, which let's face it, it might be. 

Also, the more delicate what you say, and the more you spritz in the perfume of this and that domain and lingo, the more difficult it gets for anyone to catch you out on an actual prediction deriving from your opinions, something that can be checked. No, we go into a healthy discourse here on this and this and this aspect of the space. Which might be good and healthy. It's just there isn't a whole lot of testing going on to make sure we aren't just drinking the same Kool-Aid at the same time.

The more trouble you have expressing a distinction - say between this proper and this improper attitude - that is, the more it takes you a whole article or book just to spit it out - the more I wonder why I should trust what you've baked just because it clearly took a lot of baking. Did anyone actually measure this by eating it? Do we know if this is going to give us a heart attack in three years of snacking on it?

No. More often than not it hasn't been tested, and simply sounds fancy and believable enough (aka it has "face validity," which is no kind of proof at all).