[dinoparty]

I don’t buy that for a second. You’re telling me that you can’t teach “scientific method”, and also delve into some questions that are more theoretical and transcend scientific method?

I don’t see this as confusing at all.

Could you give me examples of how such “confusion” might play out?

[Alter Kaker]

You’re telling me that you can’t teach “scientific method”, and also delve into some questions that are more theoretical and transcend scientific method?

No. Teaching materials that "transcend [the] scientific method" defeats the whole purpose of having a science class in the first place. For science, process is everything. If you're teaching kids ideas that aren't subject to standard methods of scientific testing then you're not messing with their ability to understand science.

[Coyoteman]

You’re telling me that you can’t teach “scientific method”, and also delve into some questions that are more theoretical and transcend scientific method?

Transcend the scientific method?

You mean like magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

Science is designed to debunk such nonsense, not to promote it.