dalamb@avi.umiacs.umd.edu (David Lamb) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun10.155105.5816@auto-trol.com> mattel@auto-trol.com (Matt Telles) writes: >In article <KERS.91Jun7134939@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes: >>Could you explain to an 8-year-old: >> * that sex is nicer than chocolate [points for identifying source] > ... In the above points, with >the exception of "sex being nicer than chocolate" (A Heinlein quote if I >remember right..) I would be happy to explain any of the above to ANYONE over >the age of 8. If you can't, as Jim pointed out, you do not understand the >statement. I think the reference is to C.S.Lewis, in one of his Christian apologetics, talking about trying to explain things to someone who does not have the basis for understanding what you are talking about. I take the idea of "explaining to an 8-year-old" as a metaphor for aiming to get across fundamental ideas before details; if you can't extract what is fundamental, you don't "really" understand the subject. But the requirement to communicate to someone else also presumes your audience shares some basic ideas or concepts on which to build your explanation. If they don't, you can spend a *lot* of time trying to establish those basic concepts. Isaac Asimov's science essays are famous for "beginning at the beginning" - starting with basic ideas pretty far from what he really wants to talk about.