Abstract
Today's students face new challenges that demand high levels of intelligence and meta-thinking skills. Science-based educational pedagogies like STEM, 5E's, and discovery-based education have earned a strong reputation for nurturing children's reasoning and critical thinking skills. However, there's a need for them to be more open and conceptual in order to better prepare students for modern life's challenges. The realms of philosophical and scientific-based educational models currently dominate the educational arena. In retrospect, both models have inherent values that would benefit learners. It is beneficial to examine both methods to develop a teaching framework that fosters higher-order thinking, metacognition, and problem-solving skills. The objective of this paper is to delve into the essenceof the philosophy for children (P4C) method in comparison with the scientific method and their impact onstudents' learning. Using the six reasoning strands, I will systematically compare the two models for strengths and similarities. Throughout this comparison, I aim to maintain objectivity by by drawing on references and practical experience, avoiding any undue bias in favor of one model over the other. Subsequently, by applyingTrompenaars Hampden-Turner™ dilemmas reconciliation model, I will propose the Scie-losophy model, which represents reconciliation between the two methods for the benefit of the learner and the greater good of society. •Currently, philosophical, and scientific-based education models dominate the educational arena. Both models have inherent values that would benefit learners.•Adopting one approach above the other will yield less than optimal results. I strongly discourage following a saturated educational system in which one of the two methods is used exclusively.•I propose a model that represents reconciliation between the two methods for the benefit of the learner and the interest of society.