Metronomes do not work in academic study because they insist that you perform, not learn. If you bought books, then this indicates your wish to musically improve. But nobody can improve if a performance is the goal rather than the gathering of new information.
Teachers who advocate the use of metronomes in music are wrong because they are not including the out-of-time experience that every subject anywhere requires when learning that topic. Even new surfers, who must stand on the board to ride a wave in don't do this at the Pipeline in Hawaii.
...
I asked a couple of times if people would list anything in life that is best learned in time. Nobody offered up any examples, and with respect, I already knew that nobody would! Why? Becanse practically nothing in life is learned in time! You can't cook an omelette until you've practiced how. You can't swim until you get in the shallow end of the pool. And you certainly cannot learn music on that instrument in time. There is just about nothing whatsoever in life that is best learned in time.
Why does one play an instrument? Two reasons only; 1. to play the music that you feel or hear inside, or, 2. to play the music that somebody else came up with. There is no other reason to play the bass. A metronome will not help you in these regards, but they are fun to jam with. Just know that no improvement in your sense of time will happen, not until you address what good time is and where it actually comes from.
It is well documented that you do not approve of the use of metronomes. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Many other professional players feel differently, including every applied instrumental teacher in the university where I teach, and nearly every teacher that I've ever met who i've bothered to discuss the topic with. You can pretend that you've factually "won" this argument all you want by making the same claims over and over again, but the truth is, you have your opinion on the matter, and other professionals have theirs. It comes down to what works for each person experientially. You do not win anything by repeating yourself until other people get tired of responding to attempts to negate their points of view by simply repeating yours. Again: you are entitled to your point of view, but it doesn't factually negate the points of view of others whose experience has been different from yours.
Regarding the wording of the phrase "things that are learned in time", I would counter with the use of the phrase "practiced in time". At some point between "learning" something slowly and step by step ("out of time" if you prefer) and performing the same material professionally, I would argue that just about any skill should certainly be practiced in time. To use your surfer analogy, someone who has practiced how to stand and balance on a board slowly and out if time is in no position whatsoever to jump into a pipeline in Hawaii and try to ride on of those waves unless they are trying to get maimed in the process. On the other hand, someone who has spend hundreds or thousands of hours practicing surfing at full speed would have a much better chance of surviving the experience in one piece. Learning is one thing, and practicing is another.
Those who advocate the use of metronomes as a practice tool are advocating their use by way of simulating the actual speed at which events actually happen. They are not the be all and end all of timekeeping, but they can be a useful step. Certainly anyone who can play at a high level with other musicians should find practicing with a metronome at the same tempo to be childsplay, as it is a lot more predictable. Anyone who can't even keep time with a metronome will - in my opinion - have a lot more difficult time keeping up with a groove that is a lot less predictable. Again - if you can already play flawlessly with a metronome, then you probably don't need one. If you can't, it can't possibly hurt you to work on transcending that objective hurdle before you move on to higher realms.