You want to teach the scientific method and skepticism? Fine. But you have to remember it's extremely laborious for us to do so, especially since

You want to teach the scientific method and skepticism? Fine. But you have to remember it's extremely laborious for us to do so, especially since these accumulated knowledge I think there's a miscommunication/misunderstanding here; perhaps a language/culture barrier? I'm quite sure that when people refer to "the scientific method" they're talking about this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method It's a method with six steps. It's usually something primary education science teachers spend like, twenty minutes on at the beginning of a school year. It's not laborious. (For maximum effect, the concept of the scientific method is then of course reinforced throughout the rest of the class, whenever experiments are performed. Assuming classes will be doing these experience anyway, this is not what I would remotely call "laborious") skepticism I suppose one could spend a lot of time teaching the history of skepticism, but from a scientific perspective, literally the only relevant bits are the notion that "repeatable, properly-designed experiments" are truly the cornerstone of science. I mean, it's certainly a notion that should suffuse the entire curriculum, but "laborious?"