> when you study textbook material, you’re studying done deals. You still don’t see the effort that goes into making breakthrough science, when things are unclear and advances are made intuitively and often go wrong. They don’t teach you that at school.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of how the history of science is taught. There are other examples in these threads, but even in a high school & EECS-biased undergraduate science education I was exposed to "ether" theories of light propagation and Lamarckian evolution.
Why don't they ever fix that?