Strong disagree. Technobabble inspired a generation of STEM people, and at least early TNG, when the show had proper scientific consultation, it was a delight. Problem came with the witers' attitudes and production cheapening out - ignoring internal reference works, treating exposition as something you can stub out with a "[TECH]" placeholder, to be substituted by some word salad after the episode is already written.

In fact, I think technobabble was critical to the effect of the show getting people into science and engineering, and its omission would kill that effect - it's because it delivered a message: any problem faced can be overcome with help of science and technology. Sure, the terms were bullshit, but all this talk about nadion particle counts and how many cochranes does the subspace field measure, etc. reads as "this is all things we can investigate, understand, measure, build machines around".

This overall feeling - that there's nothing out of scope for science and engineering - is a major theme of all Trek shows, and pretty unique to Star Trek. In other works of sci-fi on TV, the writers tend to be too busy writing character stories and focusing on people to the exclusion of everything else.

(I may be biased about this, because TNG and its technobabble are what got me interested in the sciences, and is indirectly why I ended up working in software.)

This is so right. I'm biased too - saw it with so many of my STEM friends from the '70s.

Agreed, to some extent. Perhaps I should have said Voyager style technobabble, as to some extent the later shows 'ruined' TNG for me.

I agree with you about the technobabble in TNG and how awful it was. But I've read enough scifi that did have reasonable scientific explanations for things like a warp drive, they just didn't want to make the effort. I'm also annoyed by characterizing it as "tiresome", I don't find reasonable explanations tiresome at all.