I remember showing that article to a colleague of mine who became Very. Angry. Indeed.
They said that all the articles and explanations that are being quoted then picked apart and shown to be inadequate are, were, and always have been simplifications intended to give the non-technical person some insight into what's going on, but have never been intended to "explain flight".
My colleague went on to say that starting with each of the simplified and incorrect descriptions, one can gradually refine each, then successively combine into a bigger picture, until one ends up with a description that "feels right" and agrees with all the numerical simulations.
But they've also stopped trying to be helpful pretty much exactly because of articles like this, that take half-truths as if they are intended to be complete explanations, then debunks them.
So don't read this article from Sci.Am. and believe it uncritically.
They said that all the articles and explanations that are being quoted then picked apart and shown to be inadequate are, were, and always have been simplifications intended to give the non-technical person some insight into what's going on, but have never been intended to "explain flight".
My colleague went on to say that starting with each of the simplified and incorrect descriptions, one can gradually refine each, then successively combine into a bigger picture, until one ends up with a description that "feels right" and agrees with all the numerical simulations.
But they've also stopped trying to be helpful pretty much exactly because of articles like this, that take half-truths as if they are intended to be complete explanations, then debunks them.
So don't read this article from Sci.Am. and believe it uncritically.