Illusion of understanding

Do you ever have an 'aha' moment when someone describes to you very well how something works? Sometimes that happens to me. “I get it now!” Then I go back and try to learn/do it for myself and realize I still don't get it. I only thought I did. I still have to go back and do more work for myself to grasp the concept.

Is it okay for a science writer to impart an 'illusion of understanding' to the generalist reader? We discussed this during the science writing workshop sessions I attended last week. The illusion of understanding is going to happen either way, and it's part of the learning process.

A scientist is an expert in her field. You can throw out technical terms like mRNA and Hamiltonian paths because she has already built up the background to understand those terms.

The general public is on the opposite end. In order to understand bigger concepts, they must accept that some things exist (like mRNA and Hamiltonian paths) without knowing the mechanisms by which they work. They must accept blackboxes, or boxes that receive an input, produce an output, and cover up the mechanism behind it. A computer is an example of a blackbox. Understanding how a computer works is unnecessary if you know that typing on a keyboard (your input) will eventually result in that email you send (your output).

These blackboxes exist within language, as well, and sometimes pop up as metaphors. A metaphor is another device to give the reader an 'illusion of understanding'. “When I rang the doorbell I felt butterflies in my stomach.” Of course this statement is inaccurate, but it gives you the general gist of how I felt as I anticipated someone opening the door.

The same is true for describing scientific processes. Someone during the workshop talked about people getting on and off a train to explain the transfer of heat. It may not be a completely accurate analogy, but suddenly the concept of heat becomes more tangible.

Or take superconductors, which in theory can conduct an electric current in a loop forever. It was much easier for me to understand why a superconductor does not violate the second law of thermodynamics when I thought about pushing a block across ice with zero friction. It gave me a better grasp of the power of lossless transmission in superconductors.

Even scientists reach a level where they do not understand the concepts anymore and instead must rely on blackboxes. And it's okay for a science writer reaching a general audience to employ blackboxes and sail over technical descriptions when necessary. It's the science writer's job to impart an 'illusion of understanding' to the reader to inspire her to learn more.