I think your post is quite ironic. You start by saying that you explicitly tried to teach them that to first detect biases in yourself and then in other people. Then you say how they got it all wrong without any investigation of whether your own beliefs might need updating.
You confuse the quest for reductionist with the quest for bias free thinking. Those two are different projects. Nobody gives you a good Anki deck for rationality because there nobody around who reduced rationality to atomic concepts that's you could stuff into an Anki deck. Most people usually don't take reductionism really seriously and try to use it on everything. Most people just use it for those questions for which other people use reductionism.
In many cases today the quest for empirical experiments is very different from the quest for reductionism. If you want to teach people to value empirical evidence, teach them to do QS experiments. If you do QS you will soon learn that it's pointless to try to reduce all phenomena you interact with to atomic units. It doesn't change anything about the data and you will make a lot of mistakes if you focus to much on reducing things to much.
If I on the other hand try to create an Anki deck for a topic it's very important to practice reductionism and reduce concepts to atomic units. Running empirical experiments however doesn't help much with creating a good Anki deck (at least if you don't have a lot of people to test variations of the deck).
Both reductionism and empiricism is a frame. It's useful to know when to use which one and when to use an even different frame.
QS experiments
You mean Quantified Self, right? It wasn't clear to me at first and I want to clarify for others.
I'm afraid I haven't properly designed the Muggles Studies course I introduced at my local Harry Potter fan club. Last Sunday we finally had our second class (after wasted months of insistence and delays), and I introduced some very basic descriptions of common biases, while of course emphasizing the need to detect them in ourselves before trying to detect them in other people. At some point, which I didn't completely notice, the discussion changed from an explanation of the attribution bias into a series of multicultural examples in favor of moral relativity. I honestly don't know how that happened, but as more and more attendants voiced their comments, I started to fear someone would irreversibly damage the lessons I was trying to teach. They basically stopped short of calling the scientific method a cultural construct, at which point I'm sure I would have snapped. I don't know what to make of this. Some part of me tries to encourage me and make me put more effort into showing these people the need for more reductionism in their worldview, but another part of me just wants to give them up as hopeless postmodernists. What should I do?