>>14003844 Depends on which science is taught and how. If people spend countless hours just to learn irrelevant knowledge and skills like specific dinosaur things or even detailed mechanics of climate change, it's mostly a waste of resources. On the other hand, a large share of time for school as well as entertainment is a waste of resources already, so it could be an improvement nevertheless.I guess people would say interest in science can be increased with education about irrelevant things. I'd say it would also work well if you mix both...and in a way that's respecting people's time.
Why are people usually teaching one thing only instead of multiple things in a short time and relationships between separate things etc? Another thing I think is somewhat missing is teaching how the science is made including critical thinking (but not in ways facilitating distrust in authoritative conclusions *if* no better sources are available, especially not commonly resorting to conspiracy-explanations despite being critical), debate/criticism of big ideas&past theories and showing flaws that were obvious and simple from today's standpoint (not just the Earth not being flat but theories discarded only recently).
Basically, showing people that science is not something *others* do but more a principle they can use on their own and fields they could substantially contribute to if they wanted to.
