Is it? I'm fairly certain that teaching is one of the most difficult things that we try to do, and that almost everything I've ever learned has be taught 'the wrong way' and then corrected later. But then, I have a degree in physics, and everything I've been taught about physics has either been wrong or is open to being made wrong. I was explicitly told as a freshmen "nothing we'll teach you in this class is true."
It doesn't matter what those are called. All that matters is how they work.
It does matter what they're called if they're not called something consistently. I've shown elsewhere in this thread that "subtraction sentence" has two entirely opposite meanings...on the same test.
If I called aerodynamic lift "flying power" and gravity "flying power" and I asked you to calculate the "flying power" of an aerodynamic body on another planet?
You might be able to sort it out as an 18 year old Physic freshman once you learned some context...maybe by your 3rd year in, but a 6 year old being introduced to this stuff for the first time?
It's a terrible way to teach somebody. It's like a Machiavellian approach to pedagogy: confuse and isolate the students so that only the best rise to the top.
Is it? I'm fairly certain that teaching is one of the most difficult things that we try to do, and that almost everything I've ever learned has be taught 'the wrong way' and then corrected later. But then, I have a degree in physics, and everything I've been taught about physics has either been wrong or is open to being made wrong. I was explicitly told as a freshmen "nothing we'll teach you in this class is true."
It doesn't matter what those are called. All that matters is how they work.