I wonder if this sort of approach actually interferes with children learning one of the most important lessons there is about science - it changes. What sets sc

I wonder if this sort of approach actually interferes with children learning one of the most important lessons there is about science - it changes. What sets scientific inquiry apart from many other approaches is the willingness to identify, admit to, and resolve errors/omissions in the face of superior evidence. Granted, if I wanted to learn about the moon, or rockets specifically I'd want the most up to date text I could find, but if that was all I read I'd end up learning less about science itself. Of course, if the book is simply a chronology of events there's merit in expanding its range. I don't know if the target audience being children makes this a non-issue, or an even bigger issue? (And yes, I'm aware of and obsessed with this book - http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083 http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thoma... :-) )