“IT MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE IT’S DIFFICULT”, vs “IT MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE THE OVER

“IT MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE IT’S DIFFICULT”, vs “IT MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE THE OVERVIEW IS SIMPLE”.
Why do you think you could understand say, category theory in mathematics, the emergence of the primary forces from discrete pressure, the biochemistry of proteins and their potential organization as a means of doing work, or say, the formal logic of legal proof, and grasp it from a just a paragraph? What about something as simple as the C programming language, or the Economics of human behavior? Or the difference between justification, falsification, and adversarial survival? And how should one explain any of those in a few paragraphs to people with no substantial education in them?
Our work (my work) is both vast and extremely technical, but the solutions that we are capable of producing are practical.
Why is it that you would presume to understand a thing if it was as revolutionary as darwin, and as complex as the innovation of computation?
It’s because for some reason people expect ethical, moral, economic, legal, and political thought to be simple – it isn’t.