So you think you have explained something?

I was just reading the description by a computer scientist of how his programming language executes.
I could not help thinking that the description was very incomplete, and yet the author was probably convinced that he had explained it well enough.

This is somewhat troubling:
  Are our minds geared to thinking that we have explained something well enough when this is in fact wrong?

I cannot help to think of how we fall for logical traps.

It seemed to me that the author had gone through the following strategy: he wrote down what came to mind when thinking about the execution of the subject. Yet, because the community in that field is tiny and because there is supposed to be a reference to that subject anyway it seemed to him that he had done enough. This is illustrative of what goes on in a small community of researchers: if you don't understand them then you should go and work with them for a certain time and it will sink in.

But there is another aspect: this being a programming language that is available, one can always go and try it out and it will sink in that way.

One of the things that I am trying to point out is that the explanation must be understood in the context of
what resources there are in the community for further explanation.