[tredigi]

> There's no need to "dumb down" anything ever, not even for children.

This is so wrong that I can't imagine you actually meant it in the way that it quite obviously reads like.

When my 3-year old just saw is favorite toy fall from the sofa because he put it in an .. unstable position, then obviously it won't help if I explain the theory of relativity to him, cause ultimately it was gravity causing the mess. It won't help either to "dumb it down" by only explaining Newton's mechanics. What he actually needs to understand is that things fall down. Why exactly can be explained later. Much later. When he goes to university perhaps, if he chooses to and still wants to know.

[sublinear]

I don't think we disagree at all about how to explain falling objects to a 3 year old. I did say it's best to leave out irrelevant detail.

You might not like this, but full detail physics explanations are usually irrelevant to everyday life. I try to explain in terms of what's necessary to accomplish a goal, not what's necessary to fully understand.

e.g. "if you tip things over close to the edge it will end up on the floor, so don't do that"

As a side note, kids often put stuff in precarious places because they can't reach anywhere better.

Anyway, the exceptions would be when the goal involves fully and arbitrarily defined contexts such as code or law. You can't assume much to get on with a task before being given a full explanation.

[lupire]

That's not dumbing down. It's not a lie and it's not wrong.

[immibis]

If your child doesn't understand falling, you are still saying "things fall down" instead of just saying "it's on the floor now"