It took me a minute to realize that you are talking about 'education science', not education.

If I understand correctly, your point is that there is a hypothesis that kids respond to a particular teaching style because they have preferred learning styles.

Then this hypothesis was tested and shown to be false. Kids don't perform significantly better in response to teaching styles tailored to their supposed learning style.

But, because people are unaware of the history and want to push the narrative to suit their assumptions and intuition, they insist that learning styles must be incorporated into teaching, ignoring the science that was done.

This is very interesting and is to me is more like willful ignorance of a body of research than history of science per se. It reminds of how they tried to get rid of Phonics in Oakland schools because it was supposedly racist and then realized that the new political way of teaching reading resulted in delayed reading comprehension compared to Phonics. Phonics worked well for me and the kids I went to school with.

But all good science depends on high quality review articles in scientific journals to keep the field up to date. This is part of science itself. When people start publishing reviews that are incomplete and inaccurate, the science inevitably suffers.

So in that sense, each field has a history that must be maintained for progress to occur. I see this as separate from history of science written for general consumption. But it's a great point.

It's also true that science is subjective at first, and people try things based on hunches and intuition. But good science is always tested and assessed dispassionately before it enters the textbooks. So it is set apart from other things that way.