Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the other way around: First was the concept, then the agreement which words we use to describe them. > If you skip out the part of the analogy where you actually return to the complex terminology you're simplifying, you haven't produced understanding Billions of people know what a telephone does and how to use one without understanding τῆλε ("tele-", distant) and φωνή ("phone", voice, talk, language). They all g…
> I can teach you to play chess without teaching a single chess-specific term. Yes, other players will laugh at you when you call the pawns "smurfs", but when you understand how to handle your smurf-army But that doesn't remove the terminology, it only changes it. You can understand chess equally well in English, French, or Lebanese, because the syntax isn't as important as the semantics. You can't teach me chess wit…
First it was that, to understand, we have to "actually return to the complex terminology you're simplifying". I disagree.
Now it is, that we need some common way of communicating. I agree.
But that are two different questions.
> [explaining EM radition in terms of phones does not help]
Nor does explaining EM radiation in terms of oranges. But I'd do neither. I'd first try to figure out whether you struggle with the concept of what a phone is or with the question how it works. Because step 1 in being understood is to understand what you are trying to say, to define the metric you can later use to evaluate your success in your attempt at being understood.