And again: Your proposal throws epistemology by the wayside. Exactly how do you plan on a robust science program that doesn't have foundational studies in that?
I don't recall stating that either. Unless stating that "those courses would be excellent for fleshing out a strong science program" is somehow interpreted to also stating "Your proposal throws epistemology by the wayside."
Experiments or statistics often do not prove
one, and only one, proposed statement as fact, if they are not judged critically and discussed within some particular methods - and any science, hard or soft, is likely to have several sets of methods operating within it at the same time, or over the course of let's say fifty years. Some of those methods may be, or can appear, contradictory vs each other. To really produce some sort of certain and useful results, methods are needed
, and secondary education textbooks by themselves are not big on explaining the fine points of method and how they relate to the actual research in nature, in the library or the lab - it's methods of understanding how to solve a scientifc question we're talking of, how to formulate questions rigorously, translate them to valid experiments and judge the results, not just the hands-on skills of learning how to set up the right gadgets in the right way to get the right results.
So experiments have a limited ability to prove things in and of themselves
, unless they are put inside a reasoning that includes, like, how to acquire and formulate knowledge, questions or hypotheses (epistemology). Experiments don't simply pole science straight into the bedrock of plain natural facts and leave the outcome standing there as incontrovertible pillars of fact. That's how it's sold to junior students and in many popular books, but most serious researchers know it's not that simple.
Both students and researchers are busy though, often stressed, so if students in a natural science are supposed to learn that these things matter, they have to acquire some grasp of critical thinking and of understanding of how and why knowledge evolves. And learn it in a way that's not just a back-written celebratory story portraying every advance in science as the obvious solution that everyone who was around at the time should have understood straight off.