Unexpectedly, it turns out to be pretty hard to explain anything from the adult world to a six year old.

It's not so hard to come up with some massively simplified analogies that can give an adult the illusion they understand a topic they remain fundamentally clueless about - pop science does this professionally.

It's something else entirely to teach specific professional domain competence to the point where someone can work as an expert among other experts.

Oversimplification and popularisation do STEM no favours. It helps no one to believe they understand string theory or climate change when they know barely enough math to add two numbers together.

A more realistic understanding of how hard physics and engineering are would mean more respect from the public, from law makers, and from other professionals.

>Oversimplification and popularisation do STEM no favours. It helps no one to believe they understand string theory or climate change when they know barely enough math to add two numbers together.

While I understand your general point, I think that oversimplification is vital in order to convey the importance of scientific work to the (mostly) non-scientists that often control the purse strings.

It's a common sentiment. [Ernest Rutherford](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford) is known for the quote "If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics. "; the point being that if you can't find and explainable version of your theory, you don't really understand your theory yourself. There are also (potentially apocryphal) stories of Rutherford talking over his work with the cleaning staff as means to help himself make his own theories clearer -- the challenge of explaining it was useful in understanding it.

Though, if you can ONLY explain it to a six year old, then you still probably don't understand it yourself.