It actually does. The primary difference is first-person pronoun use versus reliance upon external factors, such as evidence of any kind. That shift indicates a trend towards narcissistic thinking and possibly isolation.
If you have any experience reading scientific papers, you should know that this sort of language carries no information whatsoever on the rigor of the author's methodology.
I don't think it's the most plausible explanation but it's not clearly and obviously wrong. Context what matters to make sense of this, but I'm not sure this sort of analysis could ferret that out.
It's not. Especially when it's just pretension and ritualistic habit, and not even real intent.
The only distinction that matters in what you are arguing is level of education. Again, this is about a very basic command of the written word and at the same the subject here is academic research. Your comment is suggesting a colloquialism as an excuse for poor writing when actually colloquialisms have no business in academic writing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism
Like I said before I can also understand why these concepts, even though they are incredibly basic, are so absolutely foreign to a community of software developers that don't frequently write or read academic research.
Regardless, I don't really care if an academic thinks they concluded something from evidence or they just think it as a matter of opinion. A lot of the time, they don't know the difference anyway. They can present their evidence and I'll decide if I believe whatever they think or conclude.
I know academics. As a class, they aren't especially rigorous, precise, or deserving of epistemic privilege. Some are, but there's far too much variance to make broad brush statements.
You do care or you wouldn't be arguing with me and sounding emotional.