> So far it seems to me that they sometimes provide an oversimplified analogy which they revise in a later chapter.
Welcome to every high-school, undergrad and postgrad physics course. That's just how most sciences are taught. Physics especially, because all analogies lead to misunderstandings because they are an attempt to simplify the mathematics underlying the physics[1]. Such analogies will always result in certain subtleties being lost on the student, but if the student is not familiar with the subject then the mathematics would also be lost on them.
The reason why this method works is that physics operates on approximations, so an approximately accurate analogy is a step in the right direction for a more accurate mathematical model (which is still ultimately an approximation).
Welcome to every high-school, undergrad and postgrad physics course. That's just how most sciences are taught. Physics especially, because all analogies lead to misunderstandings because they are an attempt to simplify the mathematics underlying the physics[1]. Such analogies will always result in certain subtleties being lost on the student, but if the student is not familiar with the subject then the mathematics would also be lost on them.
The reason why this method works is that physics operates on approximations, so an approximately accurate analogy is a step in the right direction for a more accurate mathematical model (which is still ultimately an approximation).
[1]: https://xkcd.com/895/