It's a great answer but, a minor quibble, we have thousands of hours studying physics and the laws of motion before we ever drive a car.
See:
See:
The problem isn't that I missed his point. It's that he makes the wrong one. We understand physics just fine. But I bet most folks have little understanding of how a combustion engine works, but they drive the car just fine. That's the analogy he's going for.
Jobs was clearly talking about studying theoretical physics from a textbook.
The same is not true of computer science except in the vaguest possible uses of "language".
Study: 1. the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject, esp. by means of books
You're willfully ignoring that. You're making a point that would be valid if Jobs had said something dumber. That's called a strawman argument.
He wasn't making that point about computer science. We need know nothing about how computers work to use them. A decent, correct analogy to driving is combustion engines.
To be clear, you mean: it's a poor analogy to say we don't need to know physics to drive, because we have thousands of hours learning physics from our normal experience. A better analogy would have been we can use a combustion engine without knowing the science.
I think you're right, then.