41

My 4-year-old asks me questions like "Why is water transparent?" What kind of "why" does he mean?:

  1. What sense does it make for water to be transparent?
  2. How is it achieved that water is transparent?

The first question would be more philosophycal and the second question more physical. I don't think I would be able to explain to him the difference between those type of questions.

Mathias F
  • 585
  • 1
  • 4
  • 10
  • 38
    "Well, you see, the electron energy levels happen to match up precisely so that when the photons hit the molecules [...]" – user541686 Jul 14 '15 at 23:43
  • 80
    He means "When I say 'why', you tell me interesting stuff and I often learn a lot, so... 'why'" :) – Max Jul 15 '15 at 02:54
  • 7
    I agree with everything already said, and don't have enough to warrant a new answer. However, I want to say that 'Why' is good, and the more he asks it the better. Answering his questions not only helps him learn, but encourages him to learn and stay curious; which I consider even more important. To this day I still have fond memories of long car rides playing the 'why' game (when I was a little older and more articulate, but still same principle). The longer you can keep him asking why, and encourage it, the more your help him continue to learn and stay curious! – dsollen Jul 15 '15 at 13:04
  • 4
    So... What's the answer? Why is water transparent? – CaptainCodeman Jul 15 '15 at 15:01
  • 6
    I have no idea. The reason I have to know what kind of why he asks is because I have to know who I have to call. – Mathias F Jul 15 '15 at 15:45
  • 1
    I recently had a discussion with my 3yo about what he means when he asks "why", and came to the conclusion that he just means he wants to talk about it. When reading he often uses this language explicitly on pages that have no text—"I want to talk about it."—and in that case he just wants to talk about what the pictures mean and how the different objects relate to each other. I think his frequent "why is that an X?" question pattern is similar: he's requesting a conversation about X. – jbyler Jul 15 '15 at 19:33
  • I don't quite understand how (1) is a valid interpretation of the question 'Why is water transparent?' – John Gowers Jul 16 '15 at 12:16
  • 1
    You can also tell him that God made it this way. It worked for millennia. /s – Kheldar Jul 16 '15 at 16:30
  • http://www.scq.ubc.ca/a-dialogue-with-sarah-aged-3-in-which-it-is-shown-that-if-your-dad-is-a-chemistry-professor-asking-“why”-can-be-dangerous-5/ – Count Iblis Jul 16 '15 at 18:21
  • @Donkey_2009: it's just a figure of speech. I don't know how common it is to four-year-olds, but when the meaning of an unknown or disputed term is in doubt, people do sometimes say, "why is a tomato a fruit?", and the answer is "because it contains seeds", not the reasons Solanum lycopersicum produces fruiting bodies. It can be interpreted as "why do you say that water is transparent?", or "why is it that the adjective "transparent" is applicable to water?". You can't necessarily expect your four-year-old to co-operate with that standard of precision when adults don't ;-) – Steve Jessop Jul 16 '15 at 21:59
  • @CaptainCodeman, Mehrdad: The water has no available energy level gaps which match the photon (light-packet) energy, so it cannot be absorbed. This is partly because usually water is a fairly pure substance, so only the H20 levels are available for absorption. It is also the case that we evolved to see the light that reaches the surface, so it is because that light gets through the water vapour in the atmosphere (and the atmospheric gases) that we can see it. Otherwise a cloudy day would be dark, rather than just dimmer. Science + kids = "To see the universe in a grain of sand..." – Phil H Jul 17 '15 at 10:23
  • @Mehrdad, CaptainCodeman: To support that comment, see the absorption spectrum of water and where the visible band lies: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html – Phil H Jul 17 '15 at 10:25
  • @PhilH: Yeah I know my explanation was wrong, the whole thing was just meant to be a joke... if this was Physics.SE I would've actually paid attention to the accuracy. – user541686 Jul 17 '15 at 11:01
  • @Mehrdad, I thought so, but just in case someone got the wrong starting point... It's really fascinating to see how much science (physics, biology, chemistry, evolutionary biology, astrophysics, climate science, Gaia theory, optics...) comes out of questions about transparency of water or rainbows or why the sky is blue. Such a simple starting point, hence the Blake quote at the end! – Phil H Jul 17 '15 at 11:15
  • https://youtu.be/4u2ZsoYWwJA?t=7m this seems hilariously relevant – Cruncher Jul 17 '15 at 13:56
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8idwyuVJ4ug It's better in show. – scineram Jul 18 '15 at 08:29
  • In "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, he argues that children approach the world from a "teleological" point of view - that is, that things have a "purpose". From that standpoint, your child would be asking, "For what reason is water transparent?". That would be meaning 1, in your example. – bornfromanegg Jul 20 '15 at 10:59

9 Answers9

106

In my experience, he often doesn't know himself what he means. I've heard a lot of four-year-olds ask "Why?" ad infinitum -- sometimes it's just a way of saying, "Tell me more."

I would suspect that for most four-year-olds, asking "Why?" is a way of trying to learn more about the things around them, but I think that they are often looking for a simple explanation that doesn't necessarily answer the question they are technically asking.

"Why is water transparent?" could mean:

  • "What does transparent mean?"
  • "Why are some things transparent and others aren't?"
  • "How is it possible that I can see right through something?"
  • "Pay some attention to me, and make me feel like I'm important to you."

... or any number of other things.

If you give an answer to what you think is being asked, you can often tell if you're on the right track by how much the child engages your answer. If he seems interested in your answer, you're probably on the right track.

GentlePurpleRain
  • 2,436
  • 1
  • 15
  • 26
  • 16
    Welcome to the site, GentlePurpleRain. Good answers! I look forward to reading more of them. – anongoodnurse Jul 14 '15 at 18:05
  • 2
    Children also typically hit a moment where they comprehend that true ultimate causes are difficult to identify. Repeatedly asking "why" then becomes for a while a game where they wait for you to say "because God wills it", or "I don't know", or "it just is", knowing that you can't actually go on forever. Send them to Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) – Steve Jessop Jul 15 '15 at 00:43
  • 5
    @Steve: As I have found out (after a few kids), there is a way to stop this "Why?" game: You just ask "Why what?", insisting on a correctly worded question. Of course, you having lost the child a couple of "Why?" questions back, when your answer got too sophisticated, the child won't know what to ask for. Then the two of you are back to you being able to give way more detailed answers than the child can handle, with which both of you can deal with: the child asks questions matching her knowledge of the world, and you give such answers. This worked splendidly for (the remainder of) my kids. – sbi Jul 15 '15 at 06:47
  • 14
    An anecdote: my five year old daughter was asking about the "holes in the moon" (craters) and I preempted her "why" game by dumping all the information I had about it up front. "Oh yeah! Those are craters, they're formed by meteorite strikes which are like tiny rocks in space that fly everywhere. They don't hit Earth because of our atmosphere..." and etc etc. Afterwards I ask, "Do you understand?" She sighs heavily in the backseat and utters in monotone, sounding defeated: "Now I know everything." – adsmith Jul 15 '15 at 16:02
  • 5
    @adsmith Ahh... I remember knowing everything... those were the days. ...then I moved out unto my own. I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde – WernerCD Jul 15 '15 at 18:56
  • I'd go for "When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer" - Hans Gruber – Steve Jessop Jul 18 '15 at 11:58
  • RE: "Why?" ad infinitum please refer to https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/7462/how-do-you-respond-to-a-toddler-who-endlessly-says-why/7466#7466 – Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Jul 19 '15 at 20:30
20

My experience is that, yes, first of all, a small child's "Why?" is usually "Please keep talking." However, I have also found that sometimes they do have particular questions, and that they learn to ask clearer questions if you help them realize that there are many possible questions.

While it probably won't work the first time, try offering them options about which question they want answered. ("What are you asking? Do you know what 'transparent' means? ... Do you want to know why we call it transparent, or what makes the water transparent? Or do you just want me to talk more about water?") Even just saying "I don't know how to answer 'why' here, but i'm happy to talk about transparency and how light works, if you want."

In general, a four-year-old probably understands a little more than you think, and can express a little more than you expect, if you help them. Of course, the goal is to get them to be clear on their own, so at some point you might offer less help, and just answer whichever one you like, and let them re-ask the question. Getting to that point, I have found direct conversation about the conversation to be very helpful.

Vynce
  • 321
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    Agreed, he's saying: "Please talk to me about the water and other interesting things related to the water, in addition, please engage with me because I'm in a mood to learn something." – superluminary Jul 16 '15 at 11:27
7

If my son asked me why water was transparent, I'd honestly not be able to answer him. I think I'd have to say something like "I honestly don't know. Now you mention it, I'd like to know that myself. Shall we try and find out together?" Make it kind of a fun science challenge.

Max Williams
  • 263
  • 1
  • 5
  • 3
    I'm with you bro, why the hell is water transparent? Why have I never asked that myself? Yeah OK light goes through but why? – CaptainCodeman Jul 15 '15 at 15:08
  • 7
    I found it: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105707/why-is-water-clear – CaptainCodeman Jul 15 '15 at 15:11
  • 4
    I just looked it up too! Short answer is, "Lots of things are transparent at particular wavelengths. Because we're surrounded by water, especially when we were evolving in the sea, our eyes evolved to be able to see in the specific wavelengths that water happens to be transparent to." – Max Williams Jul 15 '15 at 15:22
  • Awesome comment thread for this answer! One of my favourite quotes about science is that the three most important words are "I Don't Know" followed closely by "Let's Find Out!" This perfectly illustrates how taking this route leads to learning something extremely cool - and a whole raft of 'What If?' questions open up as a result! – Dave B Jul 15 '15 at 16:57
  • 2
    +1 @CaptainCodeman -- My answer would be: To Stack Exchange! – Josh Jul 17 '15 at 07:19
  • Finding out together might actually be an even better response than producing a perfect answer. Well, maybe at an older age. At 4, they probably just want to hear you talk and absorb random info. – mcv Jul 17 '15 at 11:49
  • I'd really like to be like Richard Feynman's dad, who really inspired his son to find out how the world works. This clip sums it up for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjm8JeDKvdc – Max Williams Jul 17 '15 at 13:39
7

"Why" is a semi-specific invitation to interact and to teach

The child is saying, to paraphrase:

"Please talk to me about the water. In addition, please bring in other interesting topics related to the water which I may or may not be aware of yet. I am in a mood to learn. Also, I like it when you engage with me verbally because it makes me feel happy and loved. Please continue to do this."

But he has no words, so he says:

"Why is the water transparent?"

A good answer to this question might bring in a discussion of light from the sun, and how very very BIG the sun is. You might say how light is stopped by most things, but can pass through water. It might look at other things that are see though, like windows.

You might try colouring the water to change the light. You might hold paper behind the coloured water to make a pretty pattern. You might hold two glasses of different coloured water in front of each other to see the attenuation. You might try to make the water opaque by mixing cornflour with it.

You might then branch out and look at focussing light, perhaps use a magnifying glass to light a fire, look at how the fire makes light because the gas is hot and glowing. Talk about how the light from the fire can go through the water too, etc.

superluminary
  • 2,680
  • 14
  • 15
2

If you are uncertain whether a question is about the definition of a term, you can quickly figure it out by asking. In this case: "do you know what transparent means"?

If the answer is "no", you explain what transparent means. (This isn't a philosophical question in any deep sense; it's just a definition of a word. You needn't worry about whether your son is a foundationalist or a fallibilist or a coherentist or whatever; just tell him what people use words to mean.)

If the answer is "yes", or "you can see through it", or anything like that, then you can go on to explain what you can about the transparency of water (or explain that you actually aren't sure why, or that you do know reasons why but that they only make sense if you know many other things that you haven't taught him yet, or say you should go read about it on Wikipedia, or whatever).

Rex Kerr
  • 1,188
  • 7
  • 9
0

I think it would be important to know what prompted the question. The way I would interpret it in the absence of further context would be your second option. Something like:

I can't see through rocks, nor trees, nor dogs, so what is it about water that makes it possible for me to look through it?

Smig
  • 121
  • 1
0

Children need short, concise answers that makes sense in the development of their understanding of the world. Speaking as a 'tempered' parent, I would simply answer, "because it doesn't have a colour, just like glass, or the air".

That should do the trick.

user17199
  • 9
  • 1
  • 3
    I don't agree that children need short, concise answers, but if I wrote an answer my first example would be the same as yours. I immediately thought to compare it to glass, and then the air in that order. However, I would expound upon it, and talk about how we can put things in water to make it change color. If you keep giving them information, they keep picking it up and they don't have an opportunity to ask "Why?" over and over ;) –  Jul 15 '15 at 23:54
0

I have a vague recollection of asking "how come?" "how?" and "what?" in rapid succession as a young child, when confronted with a new topic. These are among the (mostly) "w" words that are question words. So that child will want to know more about topics like "water" and "transparent." And he's also getting a good "workout" on the question words themselves.

Tom Au
  • 352
  • 2
  • 9
0

I'd target an answer that's both accurate and appropriate to his level of understanding.

A water related counter-example - I heard a young boy ask his father why it rained. The father answered "because the plants need water to grow."

The guy failed on both points. The water cycle is pretty cool and not tough to explain to a child, as we've all seen puddles evaporate, and can launch from there into the process of cloud formation, etc.

His failure on accuracy really struck me. I couldn't tell if he was trying to go the 'God' route or was just struggling for what he thought was the simplest answer, but either way, he blew it in my opinion.