One of my favorite YouTube characters is Philomena Cunk, otherwise known as Diane Morgan. She is a British humorist who deadpan parodies those fine British television programs where a host narrates the script and talks about history while visiting the actual locations of that history. Most programs are about well-established British history. The difference is that she is so uninformed that she can’t even ask good questions or come to reasonable answers. But this doesn’t stop her from asking questions to experts based on deeply faulty assumptions which she openly expresses. Philomena is able to ask these questions with a straight face and directly to a subject matter expert. A few are even hosts of their own programs. When the expert provides an answer to what they think Philomena is really asking, she usually expresses disbelief and moves on to the next question.
Case in point- In an interview with a well-known physicist and host of his own TV program, she asserted that we do not know how an airplane works and asked how that could be. The physicist looked puzzled, but as all with interviewees, he kept a straight face and tried to gently answer the question that should’ve been asked. The look of puzzlement on their faces is priceless.
The physicist’s initial reply was to answer with the comment that “we have equations …”. Realizing that using equations to brush off the question was not enough so he tried to do what he should have done in the first place- use the English language to describe qualitatively how a wing generates lift.
This struck me as emblematic of physicists. Go straight to equations to answer the question to the public. Physicists can be shameless reductionists. At least in my experience. Such a reference to the equations, even though rigorously correct, is a poor answer given to the non-physics world. The public and especially Philomena need a few succinct sentences with ordinary vocabulary, but without patronizing them.
My suspicion is that nearly everything can be described at least qualitatively with the English language. This is my conclusion after having done public outreach for a few decades. To non-specialists, explaining equations can easily go sideways in the conversation. Equations are succinct expressions of relationships between quantities. If more detail is requested, then going to the whiteboard and easing into a fuller quantitative explanation with math and illustrations should be done.
Speaking for myself only, Philomena’s interviews cause me to immediately pop into cringe mode. Sometimes my cringing is so bad I become painfully embarrassed for the guest and I have to move on to a different channel. This is a general response for me when I see people innocently exposed to embarrassment. Searching for a polite answer while retaining a shred of dignity is difficult for many people.
Lamentations on Chemistry 