http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512158
"1.4 Heavier objects fall faster
The classic Aristotelian belief is that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Surely three hundred years after Galileo showed otherwise, students no longer share this belief? Unfortunately, many do, but the belief shows up only in novel situations. Students know that if a stone and a cannonball fall, they should say that both objects hit the ground ‘at the same time’; if they have been carefully taught, they might even say ‘roughly at the same time’. They also know what to say about two objects sliding down an incline, that mass is irrelevant. However, when the problem includes the novel effect of rolling (yet more trouble with circular motion!), many students have no practiced Newtonian answer to quote, and reveal their gut-level Aristotelian belief. For example, in Problem 23, about objects rolling down a plane, some students reasoned that an object with a large moment of inertia, such as a disc, rolls faster than an object with a small moment of inertia, such as a solid sphere. Two students argued that ‘moment of inertia is analogous to mass, and heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects’! I could not agree with the analogy, but I admired its boldness.
The way that rehearsal hides this misconception reminds me of the theory of the English accent: that if you step on an Englishman’s toes in the middle of the night, he’ll shout at you in an American accent. On this view, the one true accent is American. An English accent is just an act, a mask dropped upon surprise. Similarly, the students’ response that ‘all objects fall at the same speed’ is carefully rehearsed. It falls away when we step on their toes by asking about it in a novel context, whereupon they reveal their true belief, that heavier objects fall faster.""
—from Jumpers5, a play by Tom Stoppard.
That the earth goes around the sun is a pretty good approximation of the actual phenomenon, sure, but the approximation, in it's wrongness, loses the power of the real answer to actually explain what's happening.
Pedantry perhaps, but If we want people to have a better model, let's make it the right one.
All models are wrong, some models are useful. The model that the Sun goes around the Earth is perfectly adequate for most people.
I'm not saying this is good, or that people shouldn't learn about things, but realising that other people have different priorities from mine was a big step in my life. For many people, their model is good enough.
I have a mental model of how this can happen. For ordinary people on the street, the Sun goes around the Earth and it takes about a day. That's what they see, that's what they experience, and to them, that's what matter. Moreover, using the Earth as your frame of reference, they're right.
However, it's been drilled into them as an unattached, unassociated, irrelevant-to-them "fact" that the Earth goes around the Sun. When presented with the first question, then, they parrot that answer, with no idea of what that actually means.
This doesn't, therefore, mean they're stupid. It just means that they have a mental model of the world that works perfectly well for them, and they've been confused by "facts" that have no use.
I'm not arguing it's good, or right, but at least it helps me understand how otherwise perfectly functional people can appear so stupid and irrational.