How do we know that physics isn't a practical joke? It's a genuine philosophical question, a simple yet unsolvable thought experiment.
No one can explain relativity or quantum theory to a total outsider in a way that proves these things aren't made up. I may be such an outsider, though I've read tons of "popular" books and articles on the subject. If you can't understand the way these things are currently communicated, you have to take it on faith that light speed is 'constant', or that waves and particles or wavicles are 'interchangeable'.
And it's not just physics.
What precise terms replaced GOTO in software? There is an answer but it's impossible to find out. How can you write programs without something like a line command? Maybe software is divided into modules, but what exact instruction code tells the program where to go? As of 2018, it's not possible to get an answer to this question from Quora. Those I asked online replied with insults. Could this be a glitch in the Matrix?
What does Python do? Why does hot air come out the back of a jet engine but not the front? There is a good reason. The worst place to ask is a Wikipedia talk page though Yahoo Questions are good for a laugh. AskReddit depends on getting to the front page.
The system is set to handle approved questions only. Popular non-fiction books about software development are actually about entrepreneurs and their companies.
It may be a reality failure. No one is supposed to think outside their specialty. Humanity seems crazy that way.
Science is so elaborate that it has become as incomprehensible as nature. Instead of solving the mystery, it became part of the mystery. Instead of humans mastering nature, nature mastered humans.
It's time for a new type - a higher or maybe lower level - of science that treats existing science as just another mystery. A research effort to reorganize all knowledge, reverse-engineer important results, and prove them in simpler terms.
The next step would be a method to explain concepts in the simplest way possible, ideally in one sentence.
Students should be 'reprogrammed' as painlessly as possible, with tens of thousands of data atoms and factoids combined any number of ways.
Limited understanding of any subject is surprisingly easy, and would change education. The current purpose of schools is mainly to teach skills.
This is all a very long way off.
The problem may be overspecialization. Smart people can't explain their knowledge to outsiders. Sometimes they won't answer questions, or they may even tell outright lies. I'm not criticizing the infuriating Sokal Hoax - where a physicist made up a complex but fake paper about physics (incorporating concepts from the humanities) to prove that social scientists are easily fooled - only what it reveals about both sides of the Sciences/Humanities divide. It's easier to design an atomic bomb than to explain it.
The core problem is that knowledge also makes people dumber. Overconfident experts absorb the maximum number of symbols they can handle. The more they know, the harder it is to see the big picture. It's hard to see hidden similarities from the inside.
Society got it wrong by requiring immense dedication to learn anything. People or search engines or symbol predictors with superficial knowledge might recognize distant similarities better.
Understanding is only part of the Interface Problem. Why don't you get job offers in the mail? Organizations should be competing to recruit members. If the problem of forming weak or strong social bonds could be solved, every other problem could be solved.
The modular solution
In many endeavors, the first step should be to remove less efficient group members, automatically making the remaining ones smarter. That would also make them cooperate better.
Human knowledge might eventually be arranged in modules. Every insight from factoids to facts, metaphors, theories, textbooks, up to expert systems.
The goal would be to create and combine enough modules. Higher modules could keep track of lower ones.
This could even extend to the material world. Small hospitals or power plants could be designed and assembled from standard components. Streets and stores around the world would start to look more alike. With improved reliability, supply chains could become longer and more diffuse.
A modular society would have unintended side effects. Some innovation would be discouraged for the sake of stability.
Humans disagree about almost everything except certain taboos. The above proposals would take about a human eon of spare time to realize.
The first step might be to voluntarily coordinate the process, something like a "2030 Automation Initiative".
Better than a charity, its mission would be to reduce the need for human work as much as possible.
Unlike for computers, the most meaningful human resource is time. This matters even more when the stakes are too low.
Like rage and depression, stress is caused by the laziness impulse, the inevitable response to having too much to do for too little reward.
The best hard SF novel ever written: Infinite Thunder by Jack Arcalon.
Buy the book
Read the chapters