> If you asked one hundred people on the street if they understand how a refrigerator works, most would respond, yes, they do. But ask them to then produce a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how exactly a refrigerator works and you would likely hear silence or stammering.

This is a terrible example because its essentially a trick question. The illustration would highly depend on context.

Say you meet someone on the street and you casually ask them this question, or you ask this on a birthday. "Works" with regards to a refrigerator refers to "knowing how to operate", or perhaps the basics.

Whereas if its for the TV quiz program "engineering of the kitchen" or "an applicant for technician repairing Samsung's refrigerators", yes then its clear that more depth is meant.

That's not to say the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply here. Its just that there's a level set for a debate due to the context which then presets also the level of the expected answer.

Michael Faraday gave a great series of lectures on how candles work that also illustrates the difference between cursory knowledge and explanatory depth. Most people think they know how candles work, but when you dive into the details there are all sorts of interesting things going on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...

(you can also buy the lectures in book form on Amazon.)

Engineer Guy (a fantastic YouTube channel for learning how things work) has an audiovisual curriculum for this book.

http://www.engineerguy.com/faraday/

That is indeed a wonderful recreation of a brilliant original, and I often think of it when trying to figure out how to provably and clearly demonstrate some absolutely novel concept. Faraday's genius shows through here.

Thank you for sharing this!

Having watched the first lecture, I was thoroughly impressed by the design and presentation of this historical artifact, with (judiciously chosen) modern embellishments.

There is a relevant interview [0] with Feynman that I always remember.

[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/W9rJv26sxs4g2B9bL/transcript...

I think how trains stay on tracks [0] is also a good example of this.

[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a25581/science-behi...

Yes! I coincidentally just learned about that topic recently.

What’s great about that problem is that it isn’t obvious that there even is a problem in the first place. “How do trains stay on tracks? Well... they have wheels, don’t they?”

Then when the problem is explained, it sounds impossible. The solution you first think of is probably wrong.