So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:
and
So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:
and
Not unless there were some credible evidence to that effect. I personally doubt it will be forthcoming. But if those photographs are of real, live fairies I would think science might take an interest.
I've always been taught that fairies, by definition, are fictitious. Therefore, if those little people in that picture are really alive, they would not be fairies, but they would certainly pique the interest of biologists.
Science does not deal with fiction until it starts entertaining the notion that all the various biologial species (or the table of elements for that matter) arose and manifested themselves without the aid of intelligence or design.
What is there about those pictures that suggests to your reason and senses they are staged? My intuition says these are pictures denoting fake fairies. Does yours? If so, why? If not, take these pictures to the university for further evaluation.
Based on the evidence you've presented, no, science classes need not address fairies at this time. But science must keep an open mind. Just because a fairy has yet to be revealed to science does not mean there is no such thing.