Crack!

So something broke into two.
You'd ask what happened.
The normal man in the streets will probably tell you that it broke because it could not support the load it was carrying.
And if you would ask him for further analysis of the failure,
the normal man will probably still say that it broke because it could not support the load it was carrying - go get a tougher material.

But if you ask a material scientist.
He'd ask,
"Did that material exhibit elastic or elastic-plastic behaviour?"
"Depending on its behaviour, the material probably failed because G>Gc, K>Kc or J>Jc"
"What was the mode of failure? KI, KII or KIII?"
And if you would ask him for a further analysis of the failure, the material scientist will ask,
"Have you an idea of the geometry or the configuration of the flaw present in the material?"
And he will proceed to carry out a plethora of calculations, considering the rp, rys, SSY or CTOD, etc etc of the material."
And at the end of the day, he will probably say he will have to bring that failed material back to the lab for some mechanical testing and further analysis.

Good grief.

But that's just us.
To us material scientists, life's too simple.
We love making simple things complicated, and already complicated ideas more complex.
A crack is not just a crack.
It will be simply blasphemous to think of a crack as just a crack.
Noooo. It is so much more.
We'd see a crack, and proceed to write up hundreds of journals on it, come up with thousands of complex equations, and then hope to change the way the world sees a crack.

And then funnily, someone by the name of Daniel will come along, and tell us to "Think simple".