I see this happening in modern day politics when it comes to critiquing tech.

For instance, consider AI data centres in space: look, everyone knows its a high risk bet. If you do the easy thing of shooting it down, you may "win" the bet often enough. But try to understand that the world works by taking bold bets - each thing you see is a bold bet, not coming from a planned economy. I see my own laptop - the processor, the internet, the screen - everything was a bold bet at one point.

Shooting down ideas is easy and temporarily confers high status on you (since you win the bet more often than not) but in the long run such a game will show itself as ridiculous.

Heh, I'm usually on the ideas "side", but since I've publicly shot down the data centers in space idea, the shoe is on the other foot.

I'll just say that if there are some obvious enormous drawbacks to an idea, then you are responsible for mentioning your counter to them when presenting an idea. "Do X by seemingly breaking the laws of physics" had better be accompanied with at least some mention of how you are not, in fact, breaking the laws of physics.

There are two sides, the one presenting an idea and the one receiving it, and both have responsibilities. The article is about one way that one side often fails to maintain one of its responsibilities. No more than that.