Practical demonstration and motivation of formula is one thing, but I think there's another axis that's quite important, and perhaps what the GP was alluding to: the means by which people figured out that their intuitions were wrong. It's one thing to reproduce the double-slit experiment, it's another to imagine the mindset one must have to come up with the double-slit experiment in the first place, to reject common thinking of the time. To learn a kind of hypothetical sympathy, as Bertrand Russell calls it, for laws and models that were once considered plain truth, and are now seen as antique and often amusingly wrong-headed. To show that there is no real monolith of monotonic progress called "Science", and that the History of Science is as much a scientific process as any individual act of experimentation.

Learning that kind of meta-critical-thinking about the process then enables you to not only engage with broadly accepted ideas, but also with the introduction of new ideas, the motivations and psychology behind ideas, and the fickle and deceptive nature of models in general.