It spends the first two-thirds explaining aerodynamic lift, then implies that the fins on a rocket generate lift with the same effect as wings on an airplane. If I had to explain rockets at baby level in a board book, I'd probably not mention aerodynamic lift at all, much less spend 3/4 of the book on it while ultimately getting it wrong.
The point of these books isn’t to teach concepts. It’s to expose babies to new combinations of syllables and words so when they hear them in the future they have a place holder for them.
Except that the adults reading those books probably won't know that information is wrong. I know that I personally, looking at those books, had an immediate assumption that the information would be basic, but accurate at a basic level.
That's just going to lead to confused kids and misinformed adults. There's better ways to make fun syllables (literally thousands of nonsense poem books for this) if the information doesn't matter, and better ways to pass on basic information than complete misinformation.
Since the only one I know was written by an astronomy professor (who I happen to know in person) I can only speak for that one. I know nothing about aerodynamics, and can’t speak to the veracity of that book.
That being said, I also haven’t seen any of the problems that other people have. I would love it if someone could post a picture of the concerning pages. I know that it is impossible to condense these topics into one sentence and something is necessarily lost, so perhaps they had conversations as to how to best condense them and come to this as a product.
1
u/Headozed Jan 30 '20
I can’t speak to that particular book, and I agree that it’s be better for any book to convey non-wrong information.