The overwhelming empirical evidence is that having a course on proofs and basic set theory is much better preparation for advanced mathematics than reading Smulyan’s recreational math books. I guess you’d rather your students read Martin Gardner and then do Fraliegh’s Abstract Algebra book. No one does it that way but go with your so called empirical evidence.
Having a Ph.D. in math ought to have taught you to reason better than to use “actual research” as part of your reasoning when discussing learning topics that are not cutting edge. One doesn’t need to have done research in mathematics to know about Gorenstein rings or projective dimension or other such stuff. It also has nothing to do with teaching basic math.
I could be wrong in my opinion but attack it on its merits without using superfluous things like “actual research” when research has nothing to do with the topic.
As a person interested in self-learning Mathematics, i have read and amassed a lot of "popular mathematics" books by authors like Ian Stewart, W.W.Sawyer, E.T.Bell, George Gamow etc. all of which were great motivators but none of which taught me the basics of "Modern Mathematics" which i could only get from Textbooks. The quality of Textbooks are of course all over the map and so i am always on the lookout for the simplest, clearest and yet rigourous explanations available. The book under discussion seems to check all such boxes for a beginning student.
