Next the students will themselves have to guess at how to formulate what they observed. They have to formulate their own laws! Incorrect and hilarious conclusions will be suggested if the observations were not careful. This may seem preposterous. But HSTP follows this method, sometimes to a fault. But imagine the responsibility and autonomy it grants to the student. No ``definitive'' conclusions are dictated. The formulated empirical law may well have deficiencies in it when compared to standardised science. But though sufficient discussion the teacher will smooth it out enough that, at the level of the class, it is quite adequate and not contradicting anything. But isn't this how science unfold even in practice?
This does leave many with an uneasy feeling although there is no reason for it. The brainwash of usual pedagogy is very strong. The teacher is always right. The ``expert'' is a know-all, supreme. Knowledge has open boundaries but at the school level, well, isn't it ``complete''? Nothing is farther from the truth. Most of the myths are defense mechanisms invented and perpetuated by authority. It is the tentativeness of the conclusions, that makes them so novel. The habit of learning through ones own activity, albeit with some flaws, may be of greater use in the long run. Between the integrity of standardised knowledge and the self-reliance of the knower we are opting for the latter.
For this reason this program has also fulfilled the goals of ``learner centred'' education long before it came to be known that way.