simplified critique is good

I think there is a general consensus that "oversimplification is bad" and "expert opinion should be given priority".

I have noticed that while simple, populist explanations are often portrayed as bad, irrational or a class boundry violation (e.g. you are not a member of the "scientist/political class, so your input is invalid"), big populist critique is what we have done in the past, we have idolized it. And in retrospect, points of voicing certain simplified critique, can be identified as big turning points in human history:

• The catholic church popularzing a religion of ideals, of kindness and god given laws, possibly in opposition to greek/roman gods who more haphazardly did things.
  Martin Luther pointing out the disconnection of the supposed mission of the church and the actual actions of abusing the ideals for personal and institutional profit.
• Francis bacon, who pointed out that the previous attempts at "finding out how things work" were unreadable and dogmatic.
  The "royal society" of the UK forming a scientific group because he was sort of right and trying to use his approach.

Phrasing a commoly perceived issue in a simplified way that can be agreed to by lots of people, a certain "common ground making" seems to be basis for a general consensus, some specialisation and ultimately action by a lot of people.

So a big systematic critique should be short and generally correct, so that it can be easily agreed upon, rather than exactly correct, detailed but difficult to access.