Technobabble



If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Technobabble describes arguments that use the language (jargon) of science without actually being in any way scientific (sciencey, not scientific).

Technobabble uses terms from mathematics, science, or engineering incorrectly, in order to create a false sense of technical solidity around a field or concept. When real terms are used, it is similar to equivocation.

For example, homeopathy advocates use terms like "nano-particles" and "quantum" as special pleading to talk around the obvious problem that typical homeopathy dilutions exceed the Avogadro limit, by which point effectively none of the original material will remain. These are sciencey-sounding arguments but they have no actual scientific basis.

The purpose of technobabble is to replace the childish word "magic" with the stylish and believable word "technology". Arthur C. Clarke said that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"; the phrase "sufficiently advanced" in the above is believed unnecessary by technobabblers. Patience and education are the only ways to cure the disease.

Woo
Cranks, quacks, and denialists often intentionally misuse terms of art to confuse their marks, who often don't understand the specific technical definition of what may be an otherwise familiar term. A particularly egregious example of this is the denigration of a scientific theory (where "theory" is a term of art) as "just a theory" (using the more common but less authoritative understanding of the word). This often leads to cargo-cult science, where the fancy words are there, but they're used incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is one aspect of science that suffers at the hands of this quite badly. Users of quantum woo misinterpret uncertainty, waveforms, or various other hypotheses behind the counter-intuitive phenomena described by quantum theory.

Sometimes cranks will even just invent their own terms: "toxin" and "detox", for example, when used in luring the innocent in the direction of alternative medicine, are practically meaningless words that can refer to any number of chemical substances — even when they aren't necessarily toxic (or are only toxic in ridiculously large quantities) by the technical definition used in toxicology (and that's if said cranks ever mention what the toxins actually are).

As such, technobabble is an epitome of the style over substance fallacy. Technobabble is very popular with quack doctors and New Agers, who have come up with "treatments" like "DNA upgrades" and "tachyon-infused water". Many such quacks, most notably Deepak Chopra and Gary Zukav, are notorious for abusing the word "quantum", playing on quantum mechanics' reputation for being difficult to understand to avoid having to give an explanation for their snake oil. Conspiracy theorists also do this, and can even technobabble themselves, coming up with spurious and unlikely evil functionalities for technology they and their fans do not understand. Likewise, "management" consultants come up with abstract non-concepts like "leadership" (whichever mysterious trendy fad administrators currently pretend to believe in ), and cult-gurus generously spew out terms like "transformation" or "self-fulfilment" to seduce the unwary from self-improvement into obedient — as the saying goes — "mental slavery".

Fiction
It's some sort of chromodynamic module powered by a tri-polymer plasma." Technobabble in fiction, especially science fiction, is used to cloak the impossibility (by our knowledge of science) of materials, technologies, or devices without really explaining them. (Star Trek ' s Heisenberg compensator is a prime example of this; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ' s Infinite Improbability Drive is another example.) It is also often used as a deus ex machina to get out of a corner they have written themselves into. Star Trek writers are especially notorious for this shameless dress-up, often simply asking the show's actual science advisers for exotic terminology to add to dialog rather than whether it is in any way appropriate, though to be fair, the often cited "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" example comes from Doctor Who, not Star Trek.

If it isn't enough to combine terms up in nonsensical ways à la "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow", or propose that our scientific understanding is not up to addressing the issue, there are the old standbys of  or a rarely used scientific name: DHMO.

Sometimes the technobabble masquerades as science very well. For example, the short-lived  uses the properties of four-dimensional physics and triple-stranded DNA to explain nearly all the aliens' abilities and those they have converted, but even it produces nonsense. For example, it is stated that the aliens' effort is to save life on Earth from the radiation produced by the collision of two neutron stars 400,000 years ago, which a letter from NASA confirms … the problem is that light itself is a form of radiation, so for NASA to see that the collision has occurred means that the radiation wave has already hit Earth!

Technobabble in computer scenes in movies and TV is also very common. For example, a character in an episode of CSI said that she needed to "create a GUI interface using Visual Basic [to see if [she could ] track an IP address"].

Moreover, how would aliens — no matter how technologically advanced — be able to build four-dimensional objects when they (and we) are effectively trapped in three-dimensional space?

Technobabble in fiction from another angle
Alternatively, a writer may want to include a "genius scientist" archetype in their book, TV series, movie, webcomic, etc., but if the writer is not a genius scientist themselves (or not a genius scientist in the same field as their character), the writer will be unable to properly express the knowledge that the character has that the writer does not. This will naturally force the writer to employ technobabble or a similar narrative device to illustrate their character's knowledge, especially if they don't have the budget to hire actual scientists as advisors.

Reverse Technobabble
The same is true in reverse: when a debater uses technical or scientific knowledge to obfuscate the central argument by calling into question the use, application, or context of every technical term, definition, or concept their opponent presents. In this way, the opponent is left defending their use of terms, definitions, or concepts rather than their overarching argument: as such, this tends to segue into red herring semantic arguments. Technical nitpicking is a common technique in actively delaying, and ultimately suspending, any opportunity for a debater to properly verbalize their position.

Related concepts
Using terms few understand doesn't make you seem more intelligent. It makes what you're trying to say less clear.

Genuine jargon
"Jargon" or "term of art" involves technical words (or phrases) that have a specific meaning in a specific field, often one that may not be obvious to outsiders. When attempting to make a meaningful contribution to a field, it is generally very important to understand that field's terms of art, lest one be branded a fool within the field for basing one's entire position on a misunderstanding.

Jargon often comes under fierce criticism for being inaccessible to the non-expert, lay public. Opponents accuse jargon-users of complicating prose and of enforcing a sort of elitism. However, such words can be essential in science to describe a process, experiment, or result quickly and unambiguously. For example, the term "adiabatic" refers to a process where heat is not transferred between an object and its surroundings, and its definition implies quite a few other things — here, one word gets across the meaning, and indeed more meaning, than a simple explanation would. When definitions are, in fact, very precise and brief, then a simple and accessible description in place of a "term of art" might leave ambiguity.

(And yes, there are art terms of art; to provide an example, "Academic" in the context of art usually refers to a formalist style associated with official, state sponsored European Academies of Art.)

Management speak
Management speak is a method of concealing ignorance by using large words other people can't understand. It is often used in board meetings and presentations, and is also used by politicians who want to do one or more of the following: pretend they know what they're talking about, make people zone out so they can slip in something controversial without anyone noticing, or just feel special. It is sometimes known as "jargon", although jargon can just as well be a collection of specialized terms of art which, unlike management speak, isn't used primarily by bullshitters.

A well-crafted management-speak phrase may morph into a full-blown

The words utilize (use), paradigm (theoretical framework or just a slogan), innovate/innovation (getting new ideas, or pretending to), and synergy (literally anything) crop up often. Blue sky thinking and pushing the envelope are often-utilized strategies for facilitating the reinvention of interactive paradigms and promoting synergetic out-of-the-box methodology.

To be clear, not all words and phrases associated purely with businesses, nor even those purely spoken in business management, are "management speak"; some of it is just ordinary jargon, above, or ordinary euphemism ("Let's put a pin on this discussion" is a lot less confrontational than, say, "This conversation isn't productive" or "Shut the **** up, John"). For an example of the former, "Pain point" just means "a place where we expect pain" (that is, difficulty, controversy, or just plain negative consequences of other decisions), "RACI charts" are actually useful (they list who you need to talk to if you either want a change, or are involved in making one), and even the famed "TPS Report Cover Sheet" actually means something specific and refers to something that is at least marginally useful (although the fact that eight managers ask you about a missing one is a fairly good sign your company probably has too many managers).