I had a professor once who said a phrase that really stuck with me about the way that we teach (at least, in all of the education that I had): “Education is the process of diminishing deception.”
What they meant by that was that we teach things in a relative level of simplicity, and as you learn more and more, the information becomes increasingly complex, showing some of the rules and ideas that we taught previously were actually incorrect generalizations.
This is the case from history, to the English language, to mathematics and the hard sciences. Surely you can think of examples in your own mind: the definition of a species, the causes of the Protestant Reformation, “I before E…”, Supply and Demand, etc.
But like the thing is that relatively rarely do people teaching actually like make sure to note that many of the things that they are teaching are oversimplifications.
I think it’s like become an important pedagogical issue because, increasingly, you have people using a relatively rudimentary knowledge gained from the part of their education that would hypothetically be complicated and re-taught, and using that as showing their intellectual authority.
This could be known as the “I took a semester of pyschology” or “open a biology book!” effect.
So in an era where people seem to take their slight and oversimplified knowledge of a subject to give them just as much (and sometimes more!) credibility on a subject than even people with a much more in depth scholarship (due to being overconfident for personal and/or demographic reasons), is it wise to continue teaching on a model that oversimplifies information if we cannot count on that oversimplification not being used as a barrier to further knowledge?