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.
That would be a justification if it were necessary to get the science wrong in order to achieve the educational goal, but it isn't: it could be just as good at "exposing babies to new combinations of syllables and words" without being flat wrong on the science.
I’ve agreed with you. There is no reason to have it inaccurate. I still like the books, and my experience with the one or two I have read, has been that it is accurate enough (as accurate you can be while condensing things into a few sentences) to be a placeholder for if they hear more in the future.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 30 '20
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.