I disagree that biology, or by proxy any other science, should be written in such a way that a non-expert in the field should understand everything without cons

I disagree that biology, or by proxy any other science, should be written in such a way that a non-expert in the field should understand everything without consulting wikipedia or any other source. Studying a natural sciences includes learning a certain vocabulary and grammar. The reason for this is simple. We agree on certain definitions, words and sentences, to minimise the possibility of ambiguities and misconceptions. This is a very important aspect of any science. In the same sense, abstracting things is important. Abstraction gives us the opportunity to apply the results from one seemingly foreign field to another. It is not the task of science to create enthusiasm for the result for people outside the field in technical articles or textbooks as this post tries to endorse. The excitement for a certain topic should be given by the teachers and, to be honest, this was also always the case in my experience, but I might have been very lucky. Furthermore, the vast generalisation “Instead, we’re told that if you ever find yourself wanting the area of a triangle, here’s the procedure” couldn't be further from what I've experienced. I’ve never been given a “procedure” in math without being taught why and how it works.