Consider that we work in an industry of innovation, and innovations are hard to understand and usually fail to be adopted. How wise is it to encourage know-it-a

Consider that we work in an industry of innovation, and innovations are hard to understand and usually fail to be adopted. How wise is it to encourage know-it-all, shaming post-mortems? If we knew it all we wouldn't need to innovate. In fact, it's the know-it-all atmosephere that leads to shouting down innovators, who are necessarily people who see further than the know-it-alls, and that leaves us with 'faster horses'. For every innovation there is a universe of information, some of which points to its success and some that points to its failure, and much that is uncertain and subject to interpretation. Also, many innovators envision novel goals and possibilities, but the public is stuck in the old mindset. To the extent the innovation is politicized, critics will emphasize one set of data and interpretations, and supporters will emphasize another, and most will be answering the wrong questions with misunderstood information. A realistic understanding of innovation, the new goals, and the technology itself is often left out of the conversation. When the innovation is or isn't adopted (which might be due to market issues or politics - sometimes those critics are self-fulfilling - and have nothing to do with the technology) senseless narratives tell stories in hindsight where the result was obvious the whole time, as if the critics/supporters analyses were 'right' and more meaningful than coin flips. A useful post-mortem would grasp the goals, uncertainty, and risks of innovation. What did they envision? What were they hoping to achieve? What was known and where were the risks? How were those risks managed and how did they turn out? Given the innovators uncertainty, what could they have done differently? Did the innovation fail to be adopted because of tech? Politics?