Because this way, the students learn our concept of physics from the ground. How it was developed and the limitations each time and struggle, to make further sense of it.
If done right, this leads to much better understanding, than just presenting the latest model.
But that is not "from the ground", it's just repeating the same mistakes people did in the past. It's just putting a lot of effort into learning something, only to be told over and over that it's wrong. That can be very demoralising.
> But the question was, is that actually a good way to teach?
This begs the question - what makes for a good way to teach int he first place? And what is the purpose of the teaching?
In high school, and at first year university, the teaching is meant to garner a good understanding of the basic concepts - esp. in high school. Nobody expects a highschooler to be able to compute forces for real life applications after having learnt physics.
The reason i claim that teaching the history, and the "incorrect" models that have been discovered and corrected throughout history would give the students a deeper understanding of not only how science is done, but give them a deep impression of how to advance their understanding via noticing inconsistencies or incorrect predictions from old models.
Contrast that with just teaching them the "correct" model, without the context, or the history of how such models came to be. It would just be a set of dry formulae, told to the students like gospel.
Sure, but, is teaching the specific mistaken understanding from the past the way to go there, or are there better simplifications that could be used instead?
If done right, this leads to much better understanding, than just presenting the latest model.