Let me restate. There are many natural phenomena that are complex. Say the details of interstellar nuclear reactions connected to the behavior of stars. There is no simple explanation, only complex mathematical models that predict the behavior very well.
So don't say "no astrophysicist understands stellar reactions" because that is false. They understand fully, and can write the model and simulate it to answer any question.
Ditto for bicycles. Just because there is no simple explanation for bicyles does not mean we don't fully understand the physics of bicycles. It just can't be put in English. Only in complex mathematical models.
> no astrophysicist understands stellar reactions" because that is false
Cyclists are not exactly the equivalent of "astrophysicists" in this situation though. There are of course physicists who are also cyclists, but basically no cyclist who is not (or isn't very interested in the field) would be able to explain it.
>> There are of course physicists who are also cyclists, but basically no cyclist who is not (or isn't very interested in the field) would be able to explain it.
This is probably a case where not being a scientist was an advantage. Turns out they didn't need a simulation or mathematical proof it could work in order to try it.
So don't say "no astrophysicist understands stellar reactions" because that is false. They understand fully, and can write the model and simulate it to answer any question.
Ditto for bicycles. Just because there is no simple explanation for bicyles does not mean we don't fully understand the physics of bicycles. It just can't be put in English. Only in complex mathematical models.