Following on from awblain ..
As with all explanations, the desirable aim is to match (in a sensible way) the complexity of the explanation to the (educational or other) needs of the listener/user.
A lot depends on how close the listener needs to get to the heart and detail of the problem under consideration ie is a Dalton explanation adequate or does one need to get into Heisenberg, Schrodinger or Fermi ? As for bosons and fermions, spare me the details ...
Thus, there is no point in confusing a young child with an explanation of what might be going on in his digestive tract to cause the pain which is causing him grief and stopping his getting to sleep .. all he needs at the time is to know that it's OK and mummy will cuddle him until it's better.
Conversely, the RMO has no use for the child's explanation and seeks the detailed ins and outs of the relevant internal medicine considerations.
The pilot needs an idea of what is going on but, as he is not involved in estimations and the like, an overview is fine and Bernoulli fits the bill to an acceptable level .. warts and all. As to whether it is the best simple explanation is a moot point for which the answer is up for grabs. As for me, my preferred simple explanation is a Newtonian one which looks at the wing's magic bag of pixie dust which throws a bunch of air downwards .. giving the wing a lift (force) upwards ...
At the other end of the spectrum, the aerodynamicist generally gets revolved in detailed consideration of circulation theory from which he can estimate numbers (an outcome beloved of all engineers).
Point is it comes down to horses for courses .. pick the range of explanations which fit the bill and don't fuss too much about the others ...
As for Navier-Stokes, I could never figure out the answer ..