I really doubt the basis of this argument. Arguably, there is something to be learned with any new technology and any expectation to the contrary may be rather illusionary. E.g., with the postal system, how do you know that Paris, Texas, is not Paris, France, when you ignore those "technical" bits like "Texas" and "France"? (But, when these were mentioned in conversation, you could infer this from context, but now, on the letter envelope, there's no such context provided at all!) Turns out, most people were able to cope with these "technical" challenges and some aspects of this were even taught in school (how to write an address). Most people are even able to memorize the ZIP codes most important to them.
Arguably, email addresses are (much) simpler to parse than postal addresses (including thing's like c/o, post boxes, etc.)
There's a difference between that and correctly guessing that a specific address belongs to a scammer. Also fake letters from the IRS etc. are a thing and people still fall for it.
Detecting scams like this is a skill and some people - like elderly or disabled people - just aren't good at it. It doesn't help that some legit businesses are officially using gmail/hotmail/whatever addresses.
I'd say, 99.x% of the scam or fishing attempts I receive are easily detectable by the email address. E.g., a fairly accurate rendition of the bank CI, even with an appropriate text, an email clear name in accordance with the bank, but something like "<_petra167fghj@unknownserver.com>" as the email address. The problem being, it's exactly that part, which gives the scam away, that is hidden by the common email client.
Arguably, email addresses are (much) simpler to parse than postal addresses (including thing's like c/o, post boxes, etc.)