[cryptica]

The user joshuaissac gave a very good description of a 'field' as a response to my comment and it was about the same length as the definition on Wikipedia. It shows that it's possible.

I don't see why certain knowledge should be out of reach of those who are not involved directly in that field. I could explain complex software engineering concepts to a layman. They wouldn't be able to use that knowledge to implement the software themselves, but they would be able to use the knowledge to make good high level decisions about it; for example to decide which of two solutions is better given a specific problem.

[gspr]

> The user joshuaissac gave a very good description of a 'field' as a response to my comment and it was about the same length as the definition on Wikipedia. It shows that it's possible.

Sure, his definition is also a good one. It leaves out a lot, though. Which is fine, if one can assume the reader knows the context. My definition, too, leaves out a lot (it assumes set theory), and rests on the informal language known as English.

> I don't see why certain knowledge should be out of reach of those who are not involved directly in that field.

It isn't. The content of mathematics research papers may well be out of reach, but that's quite natural, don't you think? I, as a mathematician, do not expect to be able to read research papers on chemistry without putting in a lot of work.

> I could explain complex software engineering concepts to a layman.

OK. It does not follow from that that everything can be explained to a layman. Some things are easier to explain with layman analogies and mental images than others. However, to keep this fair, I think you should see how many laymen can follow Wikipedia articles on complex software engineering topics with ease! That is, afterall, where we started this discussion.