If that were so there wouldn't need to be education in the first place.
Change comes kit and parcel with learning and experience. Just learning _how to learn_ to truly grasp arcane and rigid topics is difficult in it's own right. E.g. learning to challenge your own intuition and recognizing when you're using heuristics to take cognitive shortcuts.
Buffing out the rough edges to ones thinking and practice of a skill is exactly what education is designed to do which is why I find Rorty's writing here lazy and uninteresting. The question of "how much education should be required to function in a society and what should its content be" is more than fair. Its the tone of thos piece as if the discovery of education presenting a friction point for others is profound and paradoxical which I find vapid.