In his thread regarding "Principles," DrRocket stated:
"There is no need to provide inaccurate explanations, even to the very young."
Clearly all would like to avoid "inaccurate explanations," but I would venture to say that most people posting questions in Q&A do not have graduate degrees, so obviously a graduate-level explanation would probably not be useful or understandable to the questioner. As a simple example, consider the following question:
Is the speed of light constant?
I'm no authority, but I expect that high school physics classes point out in a simple experiment that as light travels through water, for example, its throughput speed is slowed, causing the observed "bending." At the quantum level, however, as I understand it, the speed of light is never slowed. When light travels through a medium such as water, besides being "scattered," it is often (and repeatedly) absorbed by atoms in the medium and then re-emitted by said atoms. The absorption and re-emission takes a slight bit of time, which affects the overall throughput of the light through the water. Nevertheless, in between being absorbed and re-emitted, light is traveling at "c". It never does not travel at "c".
And I expect there is an even more "technical" explanation for this phenomenon that I have no knowledge of and which technically makes the above explanation "inaccurate."
Which just goes to point out, I guess, that "correct answers" are not so much a matter of being "absolute" as being a matter of being in context.
"Speaking and understanding a language... requires not only an implicit knowledge of the grammar of that language... but also an implicit knowledge of the relevant culture." -- Keith Devlin, author of Goodbye, Descartes, professor of mathematics, Dean of the School of Science at St. Mary's College, and senior researcher at Stanford University's Center for the Study of Language and Communication