>>60
I agree with you. My attitude was not towards turning well-stabilished knowledge invulnerable, but to plainly denounce the extremely loud argumentation made by some I particularly deem completely clueless.
I speak of that because I've been through it, too. That is: to believe that I knew about something, when experience showed that I truly did not. So, it bothers me a little when I read this special sort of argument, since it follows some pattern.
I actually dread the idea of having "untouched" theories. However I feel that a lot expertise is required before one can attempt to illegitimize well-stabilished knowledge and culture in general. And by expertise I mean truly objective, affordable arguments, reasons and methods. Nonetheless, because these are extremely expensive, people seem to just take naked opinions, sensations and experiences as enough to start a flame.