[dizzant]

> Many good ideas have been destroyed by too-rigid applications

This is an interesting perspective that I disagree with. You seem to be saying that a general misunderstanding or misapplication of a good idea degrades the idea to a point that "destroys" it.

On the contrary, I believe there is experience to be gained in practice: either the initial idea wasn't good after all, in which case we're destroying an illusion; or the poor examples serve to refine the idea by clarifying some ambiguity that, interpreted wrongly, leads to failure.

Perhaps your argument is that many people may become familiar with the bad implementations and the idea's popularity will decline, depressing demand for refined implementations. This is likely true, but reflects the tragedy of the anticommons, not a degradation in the idea itself.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, what I mean, is that folks invest in the dogma, to the point where they refuse to accept any changes to fit realities, and often believe that they can apply the dogma, in areas, or in a manner, where it is not appropriate.

There's an old Swiss Army saying "When the map and the terrain disagree, believe the terrain.".

People who invest in dogma, refuse to look at the terrain. The map is The Only Source of Truth.

I believe that most dogma comes from something that works in one or more contexts, and may actually be highly effective, in other contexts, as long as it is adjusted for context. That last part, is what kills it. People refuse to change, and the dogma gets a bad name as a "failure."

You see this constantly.