What exactly does he define as "bad english"?

I don't know if i agree with this. I think thoughts are somewhat divorced from vocabulary in that people can have complex thought that they cannot accurately articulate.

I think I understand why he is writing so complexly now. It is to prove a point and not have a bad influence on language.

Wouldn't it be an instrument in this case though? If people using it in different ways changes and adds meaning, it feels like an instrument that people are shaping.

This intro sentence says something interesting, but the delivery is very confusing. I feel like it would get the point across better if it weren't so difficult to read.

I think that the reader's expectations also come from just what they're used to. That's why common structure is helpful across scientific papers.

I think that this makes a lot of sense. A paper will be easier for a reader to understand if the information is located where they would expect it to be.

I agree that tables and graphics can really help with understanding. That being said, the tables should be well-labeled and simple to understand.

I think this is where a lot of scientific authors go wrong. They write their papers so that only a very small group of specialists can actually understand them.

I agree that a complex thought doesn't have to be impossible to understand. I think a food way to remedy this is to use less jargon, or to define the jargon as you use it.

I think this ia a really important point. Even if the writer knows exactly what they're talking about, if they don't know their audience, then the reader might struggle to understand.

I think that this is super important. Just because a study is published doesn't mean you should believe everything you read. It is important to understand the limitations and possible pitfalls of the data and methodology.

I tend to skim methodology sections because they don't provide any new information on the conclusions of the paper, but I think that methodology is actually super important. Not only for understanding the paper, but also for learning how people are doing research.

I think that starting with the abstract is super helpful because then you know where the paper is going. Understanding the overall process of the paper can help you to place the significance of smaller details.

I think that it's important to do things like this multiple times, but it's not always going to take so long. I think that part of the initial process is learning how to learn. So it just gets easier as you do it more.

I think that this part is important. When you don't understand something, if you just continue reading, I feel like the confusion just compounds. I feel this way when I read my math textbooks. If I don't understand something, I have to figure it out before moving on.

I think that this is a lot more common that we think. Reading something and digesting something are two completely different things. You can read every word in a document, but if you aren't actively listening to what you're reading, you won't get anything from it.