NewRon, if we dig deeply enough into any topic we eventually find overwhelming complexity. All roads lead to quantum physics.

Dr. Mason is communicating on a
layer of abstraction that is closer to our everyday reality than the one used by Dr. Dayspring. Should we assume that deeper is automatically superior and that higher layers are obliged to reconcile any conflicts with lower ones? Perhaps we should keep
Occam's razor in mind as well - complexity can conceal errors or deceptions. Sometimes a lower layer of abstraction is just
inside baseball (or quantum mechanics!), and we can play the game (or live life) without them.
Without pretending insight into anyone's intentions and motives, consider these two sets of observations:
1.
Direct - presenter uses ordinary words and refers to illuminating visual aids. I understand and am thereby empowered.
Accountable - presenter explains reasons for conclusions.
Transparent - presenter shares source material so I can review and confirm for myself.
Call to action - decide and do for myself.
2.
Indirect - presenter employs jargon heavily. I learn that this subject can only be understood by specialists.
Authoritative - presenter conveys conclusions only.
Opaque - presenter acts as self-validating authority with occasional reference to the conventional wisdom.
Call to action - pay authorities for interpretation, advice, and treatment.