I upvoted this, because I think the fundamental thesis is right: most of the time, for physical phenomena, there is a wrong-but-close approximate explanation that is within the understanding of someone with high-school science, or at least within intuitive grasp thereof. This is the basis of popular science.

The errors with the approximation reduce as you apply better models, and those models are the domain of practitioners.

The question of why airfoils generate lift seems to be resistant to the popular science technique. The first useful approximations all require calculus and are the result of whole-system effects at a macro-level. So all the explanations you can get to from high-school science are contradicted by real-world experience.