Two false theories don't need a balance. They need a third option. Or an admission that we don't know.
An ongoing debate in pedagogy is between memorizing facts and understanding the bigger picture. Only knowing facts turns us into parrots. But without a solid foundation of facts our understanding will be filled with gaps. That's a classic balance of the gap. Both options seem wrong on their own so the balance could be correct. That is a logical fallacy.
I propose a third option: Learning should be based on the learner's individual problem-situation. That theory is silent on the question of "facts or understanding". Everything depends on the problem of the learner. If someone want's to know all the lakes in Sweden by heart, they will need a system of memorizing them as facts. If another want's to understand why a lake in Sweden virtually never freezes completely in the winter, they need to understand how the density of water changes with temperature in counter-intuituve ways.
Maybe you don't think that theory of pedagogy is correct. That's great. When we have a new theory we can offer specific criticisms of it. That's how progress is made. Blow it up and propose another alternative.
Searching for the third option should become a habit. If you want Chinese food and I want Italian, maybe the answer is Indian.