It seems to me that topics TCS and complexity theory are to CS undergrads and CS-adjacent professionals akin to how topics in particle physics are to the layman. We've heard of the word NP-hard like how the layman has heard of entanglement, and then we've substituted working through the mathematical development with terrible pop analogies and fanciful imagination.
Sure, but there's no reason to think that everyone now has to use the very strict definition of "Computable", when it has a colloquial definition that makes perfect sense (a computer can do it).
It could be Author chose (due to their extensive training) their (very strict!) definition of computable, then wrote an entire article about their specific definition of a word, and lambasted the world for asking dumb questions using a different definition of the same word, and refusing to elaborate.
This honestly happens all the time at work, when talking to academics, or even talking to laypersons. It's hard to establish common nomenclature, and drawing a line in the sand at their nomenclature and asking people to catch up is exhausting.
A fair point in general, but when reading Scott Aaronson's blog quoting a textbook called Introduction to the Theory of Computation, we should be prepared for TCS jargon.
And people curious about P versus NP or Busy Beaver should begin by learning some basic TCS, so they can understand what people who study the problems professionally are saying.
I definitely read his article as being a sort of "people keep asking me" as though they approach him in his daily life / his uncle wants to know. I suppose another reading of it is that he's referring mostly to comments on his blog, in which case this makes sense.
Hard disagree. If you want to have a meaningful dialogue with competent specialists, the burden of learning the jargon is on you.
Philosophers spend a lot of time in term definitions and it's the only way to avoid the conversation devolving into talking past each other.
Rigor might be exhausting, the same way that exercising is. No one is forcing you to do it, but you can only reap the benefits by making the effort yourself.
Sure, I'm getting mixed up in "debate between experts" and "pedagogical difficulties with laypeople". TFA is meant to be discussing the former case, and I read it as the latter.
