>Nah, scientific papers are supposed to be precise and technical.
They're also, more often than not, tedious, badly explained, error prone, oft-skipped, and hardly ever read carefully, even during peer review for the paper that contains them. That's how mistakes stay unnoticed for decades in influential papers with tons of citations.
In essense, a paper's tone and languge is often more formality, academic tradition, ritual, and padding for publication purposes, than serving a real purpose.
They're also, more often than not, tedious, badly explained, error prone, oft-skipped, and hardly ever read carefully, even during peer review for the paper that contains them. That's how mistakes stay unnoticed for decades in influential papers with tons of citations.
In essense, a paper's tone and languge is often more formality, academic tradition, ritual, and padding for publication purposes, than serving a real purpose.