One thing I dislike about the academia is the obsession with criticism, especially the form it mainly takes inside classrooms where we are expected to hone our verbal skills. This kind of sophistic criticism is usually motivated by discovering the logical errors made by the author whose text is being analyzed. Criticizers also often aim at pointing out how others have addressed similar issues earlier with more success. What criticizers often fail to notice are the achievements of the author or the text, or realize how those achievements may be utilized in our own work. Criticism often fails to serve any intellectual purpose and is a purely habitual performance that simply fails as a methodology. Why waste time on criticism when you can spend it on your own work instead and try and make it as good as possible. The good stuff will get used and the obviously bad stuff will be forgotten. To that extent I think science can be characterized as self-correcting.