[nkoren]

Children don't need to watch a shuttle burst into flames in order for science to progress.

Yes, they do. Progress with zero risk of failure is no progress at all. To even attempt progress with zero risk of failure is to ensure that:

1.) You will minimize your progress

2.) You will fail anyway

...As the Shuttle all too ably demonstrated.

[Splines]

I think we misunderstand. I'm arguing that children don't need to watch potentially disturbing imagery to ensure that they contribute to furthering science in the future.

The argument "we should not coddle children because science" rings false to me. "Coddling children" is a bit of a strawman; there are things we don't tell children because of their innate immaturity. As are most things, it's a spectrum.

[kbolino]

But in order for children to mature, they must be exposed to circumstances that challenge their naive understanding. Maturity is only correlated with age, not caused by it.

Watching a shuttle explode on TV is not the same as, say, witnessing first-hand the gruesome death of one's own parents at the hands of a psychopath.

I agree that a balance has to be struck, but I think you've lost sight of where that balance is.

[mikeash]

I would argue that hiding things from children the way we do only works because we aren't always successful at it. If we were able to hide things from children with 100% reliability, we'd end up with young adults incapable of functioning in society.

[aidenn0]

Like the average college freshman from the suburbs.

[mikeash]

Which is precisely the sort of thing that leads me to say that!