Ugh, not this clickbait again. The actual title of that article should be "explanation of flight defies a simple intuitive explanation that is both wholly correct, and understandable to the layman". Very different then "no one can explain it!"

I couldn't agree more! However, I think the content of the article is informative. If you strongly disagree I'm happy to remove the link to the article

No, I do think it's an informative, well written article. It's quotations come directly from some the most well-known, and respected names in the field of the aerospace. I've even referenced it before on this very site! I just bemoan it's terrible title, and am perhaps bitter from the times when relatives send me links with similar titles (usually of lesser quality) and I have to explain that yes, people in my field do know what their doing. The infamous "bees" quote being a particular bug-a-boo.

I would however critic it's use as an example to prove that we have a history of rationalizing explanations where none exist (and using that to draw a parallel with AI). While the title implies this conclusion, the article itself does not. We do indeed have a very good explanation of how aerodynamic lift works. That explanation just takes the form of a set of differential equations, and isn't something one can easily tell a group of 5th grader, without simplifying to the point of spreading errors.

I wouldn't use it as an example to prove that that we have a history of rationalizing explanations where none exist. Certainly, as you mentioned, the explanation takes the form of a set of differential equations. I would instead argue that there is a history of incorrect rationalizations from individuals who were akin to "real world aircraft engineers" in their time and that these rationalizations are still present in discourse around wing lift / design.

The fact that we have a history of rationalization was actually never questioned. Rather it was pointed out that it’s not the only thing that our minds do and that’s something you need to consider.

There are also humans who hallucinate. Studying this phenomenon is useful, yet, on its own, it’s says nothing about how human brain works in general.

I took issue with the example of aircraft airfoil design, probably too pedantically, due to the challenges technical individuals have had related to rationalizing the behavior, despite a mathematical explanation.

But I completely agree with your point that rationalization alone isn't sufficient. We struggle to describe the universe solely in words and rely on other tools to further describe phenomena.

How to provide AI models with these additional capacities isn't necessarily clear yet but there are some interesting ideas out there: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-as-...

I see, maybe a different example could be more suitable but I assume people get the point in my comment, which is the huge difference between rationalizing a gender based decision on loan and the process of thinking, designing and building something like an airplane, or a nuclear power plant or your phone, etc.