Or just give an actual explanation. The truth doesn't have to be boring.
"In this hole here is the camera lens. When you point it at something and press the button, the camera takes a picture. Then a little computer in here turns the picture into a drawing, and then the printer puts the drawing on paper, which comes out here." Bonus points for doing a teardown to show the parts.
Kids can be just as impressed by the real world as by made-up stories, and even things learned in early childhood can have long-lasting effects. For example, once I was sitting in physics class listening to the teacher and suddenly had a flashback of my father giving a much better explanation of the same thing when I was maybe 5 years old.
I think the intermediate step is quite interesting too.
"There is a program that turns the image into a list of objects and positions. Then an another program takes that list and draws a new image using it."
...but you know that would not be challenging. Why would you want to 'steal' the camera and surreptitiously take it apart AND put it back together again if things were fully explained in an adult way?
There is a good reason why we tell children about Father Christmas and don't tell them the truth of the realities of modern manufacturing techniques, the intricacies of finances and such like.
It can be as challenging as you want it to be. Each of the components offers infinite options for recursion. How does the camera lens create a picture? How does the computer make a drawing? How does the printer put a picture on paper? And how do we put this thing back together after taking it apart?
I think the major reason why parents prefer stories about Father Christmas is that they are familiar with the concept of a white-bearded guy climbing down chimneys to leave presents, but they could not explain how a factory robot works or how feedback loops in financial markets can lead to oscillation.
Of course you have to make sure the child is actually interested, but if it wants to know about the camera in TFA, then redirecting that interest towards a story about autistic squirrels just because you happen to find that hilarious doesn't seem like such a nice thing to me.
The dull science lecture approach may be suited to a mature teenage who is just about to sit their physics, maths and computer science exams.
However, it is important to give younger children stories such as Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the like to stimulate their creativity and play. Not one single book in a primary school library is fact based. Children do not seem to be damaged by this. Nobody grows up mentally scarred because they learn that Santa is not real, with chips on their shoulders because they have been betrayed by their lying parents.
Fun is allowed and it does not have to be boring, mandatory, tedious lectures that daddy thinks are more 'educational'. Some people don't move on from playing games, some people will instinctively want to hack games and write their own. Furby style toys are okay, bags of resistors with instructions to build your own are not for all age groups.
The sun being a super-heated ball of plasma firing neutrinos right through you is no less enchanting or imagination provoking than magical explanations. Describing radio to pre-schoolers is challenging though.
Father Christmas is anathema to me. It doesn't appear to have had any deleterious effects at all with the creativity of our kids, we play make believe, we dress up, draw pictures, act and make fun.
Why lie? People give our kids presents with "from Santa" on, and we're happy to say who really gave it -- that there are people who think about you, care about you, spent money they worked hard for, that's a hugely awesome thing. Knowing you are part of such a community, and that they (the kids) can do positive things in their lives too - demonstrating care of, love for, or even just charity towards others - that's transformative IMO.
I have no problem with telling fictional stories to kids, but I also disagree with your portrayal of fictional wonder vs dull lecture. Reality doesn't have to be dull. Carl Sagan's Cosmos has been seen by 500M people and many people who were kids then still remember being glued to the TV, fascinated by the science.
> Not one single book in a primary school library is fact based.
What a strange idea. Didn't your primary school have an encyclopaedia? Didn't you study any science or history then?
Or do we have a different idea of the age of children at primary school? Where I come from (southern England, born 1955) I was dissecting buttercups and sketching them at the age of nine or ten, demonstrating that pondweed generated some sort of gas by putting an upturned test tube above it, etc.
We studied history with reference to Roman roads and neolithic hill forts.
And of course we played loads of competitive sports.
"In this hole here is the camera lens. When you point it at something and press the button, the camera takes a picture. Then a little computer in here turns the picture into a drawing, and then the printer puts the drawing on paper, which comes out here." Bonus points for doing a teardown to show the parts.
Kids can be just as impressed by the real world as by made-up stories, and even things learned in early childhood can have long-lasting effects. For example, once I was sitting in physics class listening to the teacher and suddenly had a flashback of my father giving a much better explanation of the same thing when I was maybe 5 years old.