When I read computer science papers, I often find them written in a rigid, academic style compared to a blog post or a book. I sometimes skip reading papers for that reason. This is sad — there's all this human knowledge that was painstakingly discovered that readers are skipping because it was poorly presented.
One good writing technique is to take a complex idea, simplify it by eliminating some details, and present the simplified version. Then, once readers have understood that, present the details that you left out.
Maybe academics are afraid that someone will take the earlier sentences out of context and claim they're "wrong". When I was in college, my advisor picked out such an introductory sentence and said that I should be more accurate. I explained that it's just a simplification and that the details he's worried about are in the next para. He said, "That's fine, but this sentence should be correct by itself." The earlier sentence was wrong only if one picks nits. Actually, it was simplified, not wrong.
I wonder if academics don't understand or respect (enough) the principles of good writing.
Hmm, I think you should aim for sentences to be correct on their own and be arranged such that understanding & precision is built incrementally (in the way you suggest). This is harder, but that's what good writing does---I want my "simplified" parts to be real approximations of the precise parts; we mustn't settle for the simplifications failing to approximate the precise versions.
It may be easy for experts to avoid getting confused by a literally false claim, which is clarified in the next paragraph. But your paper will often be read by people who are not experts in the paper's topic, so some will end up being confused by this.
It's stressful for me to read that kind of paper, since it causes a lot of cognitive dissonance as you read! Maybe it's not like that for everyone, but I prefer to read papers that don't use the approach you appear to suggest.
I agree with you that simplifications should approximate the precise versions. Mine did approximate them. Note that approximate means "not perfectly agreeing with". But my advisor wanted them to agree perfectly, at which point they are no longer approximations.
Sadly, your advisor's attitude is common. The mathematics literature seems to be particularly effected. There is incredible opposition to inserting a statement which isn't perfectly rigorous, even in the introduction where reader should expect a simplified overview of the paper. The result is one of the most opaque literatures in all of science --- it is almost impossible for a nonexpert to have any idea whatsoever what a paper is about.
One good writing technique is to take a complex idea, simplify it by eliminating some details, and present the simplified version. Then, once readers have understood that, present the details that you left out.
Maybe academics are afraid that someone will take the earlier sentences out of context and claim they're "wrong". When I was in college, my advisor picked out such an introductory sentence and said that I should be more accurate. I explained that it's just a simplification and that the details he's worried about are in the next para. He said, "That's fine, but this sentence should be correct by itself." The earlier sentence was wrong only if one picks nits. Actually, it was simplified, not wrong.
I wonder if academics don't understand or respect (enough) the principles of good writing.