The Rest Is Falsehood

Can we also add "As we shall see" to the bonfire?

KG replies: It's in the flames. I've never used that one either.

I've always thought of that phrase as a kind of disclaimer. The writer has to show he really does realize that there are all these awfully relevant subjects to the minor sub-point he's making and he's especially addressing those readers out there who might know those things, too. So I think it's neither humility nor a dark hint but something in between: it's just there to cover your ass, a pre-emptive response to criticism.

KG replies: Maybe that's why I get so much flak, because I fail to continually remind readers that I'm not talking about what I'm not talking about. :^D

I think the award for Most Overused Word in Academic Writing About Music should go to "important."

Not only is its inclusion mandatory -- its meaning is at best vague, and at worst non-existent.

This comic seems relevant:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=405

I sometimes see a third meaning in "outside the scope" comments--a sort of built-in excuse in case you're relying on something outside your area: "this isn't something I've actually studied, so you can't get too upset if I've badly misused it."

KG replies: Even so, why not write, "This is an area into which my research has not yet extended," or "To pursue this further would sidetrack the primary purpose of this article"? Why fill your writing with boiler plate? Why plug in "lies outside the scope" just because you've read it a thousand times, as though a scholarly article were some sort of mindless ritual? Isn't the article itself supposed to be evidence that one is actively thinking? Why provide evidence to the contrary?

[UPDATE] After all, part of the problem with the phrase is its flat, academic passivity. Something lies outside - no reason for excluding it is given, no rationale for including it implied. It deliberately conveys no information, since what *is* within the scope of the paper is obvious. It's like those statements of policy given by bureaucrats to cut off negotiations without justifying, whose real meaning is, "You're not important enough for me to have to come up with an explanation for my behavior."