I don't understand the assertion that, in order to criticize, one must always solve whatever problem is in question. It's the same kind of logical strangeness a

I don't understand the assertion that, in order to criticize, one must always solve whatever problem is in question. It's the same kind of logical strangeness as "if you can't do it, you can't criticize it." Criticism isn't always about "you're wrong and I'm right." Pointing out a deficiency can encourage discussion. There's no necessity to be an authority or have a foolproof solution ready in order to make relevant statements; convincing people this should be some kind of requirement stifles ideas and prevents the advancement and improvement that "hey, there's something wrong here" can put in motion.