See, I suspect I have not said what I'm trying to say. And I suspect that if we were to talk at length, face to face, you'd likely find me another one of those people shackled to "ready-made views,"

Perhaps. But I think that, in a rush to grab at a familiar feeling, I may have explained what I mean with less than crystal clarity.

I think length of conversation and proximity of physicality might make for the best possible understanding, if you ever have the time and/or inclination.

I'm more about tweaking than tearing down and rebuilding

I think there's a place for all of the above, if a system fails us, but I agree that a series of revisions, structured on the new understandings we gain through investigation and experimentation are the best ways to go.

It always seemed that science cast old things aside, as it found new things, and lost the value of context, and learning over time. Of course, as I got older, and studied more, I realised that this was not necessarily the case, nor was it even the majority; it was simply what got thrown in to schools, and How it got thrown, that made it seem that way.

I think we are far better served by seeking to understand the flaws in our system, and repairing them by applying new understandings and techniques for renovation and revitalisation. But I think that those things that challenge the foundations we hold are worthy of investigation on their own terms, as well as the terms of any other investigative tools we have at our disposal (physics, psychology, anthropology,&c.).

I hope that made sense.