I am a professor of chemistry and physics with significant high school experience. I was teaching a section of advanced high school students that were dual enrolled in a college section of freshman level chemistry during their senior year of high school. They were subjected to the same rigors of knowledge but we had more time together. I performed the Forer demonstration with them right around the time that I was going over the history of atomic models. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect)
So, I started the lecture that day with a bunch of pseudoscientific garbage. I told them that if you start with something small and multiply it up to a large scale that you'd get large errors but that you could get shockingly good measurements if you started with something big and narrowed it down to the small. For example, if you measured a single floor tile and then multiplied by the number of floor tiles in the room then you'd compound your errors and end up being off; however, if you measured the whole room's square footage and then divided by the number of floor tiles then you'd be really close to a good, precise answer. The kids are nodding their heads by this point. Well, as a professor of chemistry and physics, through the various colleges and universities I'm affiliated with, and the journal publications that I have access to, I can get some very reliable data, astrophysical readings, and other star charts. If I start with data at that scale, and then narrow it down to the scale of say, Earth, then you might be surprised what kind of predictions I can make. Now, I've ran some calculations for you, following the models, along with some computer assisted predictions, and I have some for you to take a look at. These aren't common newspaper style predictions but ones made with access to high level resources. I'm going to ask you to do an evaluation of the model so it's really important that there isn't any talking. I need you to see your work and your opinion alone. We will share after you have completed your written evaluation.
At this point, I'm still talking but I'm handing out pieces of paper. They're folded in half, and on top there is written a last name with a date of birth that I've pulled from their records. I tell them that they are customized to the individual and I'd like you to evaluate them by striking through anything that seems like it doesn't apply to you, underline anything that you agree with, and put a box around anything that is spot on. You'll get a chance to share in a moment, but please keep this to yourself until everyone is done writing.
I have several kids out of the 20 some odd that are having trouble keeping quiet because they're freaking out saying things like, "how do you know this!?" and, "this is scary!" but I try to calm them down until everyone is done. Of course, everyone's says the same thing: "You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life."
Because of the authority that I've established by this unit, I've only ever had one kid give me the, "I know what you're doing look but I'm playing along." The kids are shocked as a whole and several admit to having formerly read horoscopes regularly. We go on to talk about several logical fallacies from appeals to authority, false dichotomies, quid pro quo, etc. I've never been brave enough to try a cold read for fear of bringing up some bad memories for students. People who pretend to do that are evil and I've never convinced myself to join their ranks.
We talk a lot about confirmation bias particularly as it relates to the supernatural. I use the street light interference example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference) We have all walked under street lights hundreds of times. When you walk under a street light, and you walk away with the street light still on, that is hardly a remarkable experience. When you walk under a hundred street lamps, and two of them turn off... the next day as you recall back, you remember the 2 that turned off. You don't think about the 98 non-noteworthy ones that stayed on. So, as time goes by, you reflect back on your experiences and all you can seem to recall are street lights turning off. You didn't form meaningful long term memories of street lights doing normal street light things. Typically, at this point, we're done with that class period, but the kids are eager to keep talking about the history of science, scientific thought and natural philosophy. Unfortunately, we're segueing back to Rutherford...
tl;dr yes we absolutely should.