I think the key point the post tries to make is that your average Western education student is primed to memorize and take facts at face value, without interrogation. Overall, besides the assumption that Western education is hardly homogeneous, a point already made by several commenters, this seems somewhat valid but incomplete. It's not as if _all_ flat Earthers come to their belief by accepting it at face value. There's the people from the Netflix doc Beyond the Curve [1] and that guy who's trying to build a rocket [2], so it seems to me that there's at least some evidence that contradicts the original point - there are conspiracy theorists who not only proceed to interrogate their beliefs, but test them in a way that _should_ lead them to the correct conclusion. It's not so much a problem with memorization so much as it's a problem with the interpretation of results - any test that contradicts a flat Earth must be from a mistake. This is a much more subtle problem than the one introduced by the post, this is not just a case of mindless sheep doubting one memorized system and switching to some other memorized system, these are rational people deriving their beliefs in a rational way, but for several different reasons, arriving at the wrong conclusion.

I don't want to type up a massive wall of text, but some other problems I have are:
1. The fact that education isn't occurring in a vacuum, even if "Western education" was constructed to teach all facts by rationally deriving the facts, we can't deny that there's a religious element to Flat Earth, and if you're taught from an early age that the Bible is both true and literal, then they're going to ignore that rational education anyways (I have nothing against religion, but the literal interpretation I was taught at an early age led me to believe that the Earth was only 6000 years old). This is also important because a conspiracy theory does not come from nowhere, there has to be a narrative. Otherwise, there's no reason to doubt what you've been taught. There's no anti-mitochondria conspiracy.
2. There's going to be an element of memorization, if not the conclusion ("the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell") then the observation, and so what happens if they doubt the experiment they've been taught? At _some_ point the student has to have faith in the teacher, and faith in the scientists who came before us. We can't just dismiss all memorization as inferior to frameworks and rationality, there's a need for a distinction to be made here.
3. Reducing belief in conspiracy theories to an inadequacy in education seems to be ignoring the underlying problem of doubt. We can lampshade this and say that teaching people to accept things at face value causes them to accept other things at face value as well, but ultimately there's no system under this framework for explaining _why_ a person may privilege one belief over the other.

I overall agree with the point that education seems to focus too much on memorizing disparate facts that almost feel like trivia at points, but the post seems to assume that providing the tools to interrogate our beliefs will lead us to the right conclusion, but these tools can still be misused and the underlying assumptions under which we apply our rationality are still important. Understanding these underlying assumptions seems far more important to me than trying to pin down a complex issue on a single, equally complex thing as education.

[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/flat-earthers-tried-to-prove...
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32X88HMae0I