Maybe, but if the new cross-pollination just confuses the issue rather than clarifying it, what's the point?
"Suppose you have a bunch of flowers in a field, and they're planted so that the east-west direction corresponds to the diameter of the flower and the north-west direction corresponds to the length of the leaf."
"Huh?"
"Suppose you have a bunch of data points in an n-dimensional space"
"Suppose you have a flower data set, and each item has two parts: one value for flower diameter, and one for leaf length."
"Oh, that makes sense."
"Makes sense to me, too."
"And me."
"I wish my professor had just said that. Thanks!"
There is a lot of middle ground between an artsy, overly wordy scenario and a perfectly abstract scenario using jargon that's defined in terms of other jargon, etc.
The cross-disciplinary sweet spot is where you can define a problem from one side in terms compatible with an existing solution from the other side. You end up with language that's somewhere in the middle and easier to understand than it was at either extreme.
"Suppose you have a bunch of flowers in a field, and they're planted so that the east-west direction corresponds to the diameter of the flower and the north-west direction corresponds to the length of the leaf."
"Huh?"
"Suppose you have a bunch of data points in an n-dimensional space"
"Oh, gotcha"