[exDemMom]

And I suppose since there is no air in space, man can't fly to the moon. That's a simplistic argument people can understand too and it has another thing in common with your statement. It's wrong.

I'll stick to highly technical terms and advanced mathEmatics.

So... rocket propulsion in space is too difficult for people to understand? Or they need advanced degrees in physics to understand why it would work? I don't think so. Simplified explanations work because people understand physical laws instinctively, even if they can't tell the difference between second order reaction kinetics and an absorbance spectrum.

My opinion has always been that no matter how complicated your subject is, you should be able to explain it so that a child can understand. If you can't simplify it to that level (without leaving out so much that you're no longer describing it accurately), then your understanding of the subject becomes suspect. Too many anthropogenic global warming proponents use the fact that most people have weak science and math backgrounds to snow them. They don't care about leading people to true understanding; they present themselves as superior and smarter, with the strong implication that the intended audience is too stupid to even begin to understand the issue. Personally, I prefer to guide people to understanding--and that means talking to them at their level.

[grey_whiskers]

My opinion has always been that no matter how complicated your subject is, you should be able to explain it so that a child can understand.

Both Dick Feynman and C.S. Lewis agree with you on this.

Well done indeed, I say to you!

Cheers!

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

In order to be able to explain something to a child, first one has to understand it. One can’t begin with a childlike understanding.