So we do agree that in Judaism it makes a difference if something was said by rabby Akiva or by a rabby living today.
Hence, a saying is not judged just by its contents, but also by its author. This is an obstacle for critical discussion because a rabby has to be very "daring" in order to propose the reversal of a rule created, for example, in the Talmud era.

As a possible alternative consider the Israeli law system. When the court applies a certain law to the case in hand, nobody asks which MKs supported that law when it was voted on in the Knesset. The law is simply there, and if enough people realise it has become inappropriate - it is changed.

To summarize, respect for the wisdom of former generations is, in my opinion, irrational and damaging. We have to think for ourselves.

Perhaps "respect for" is inappropriate and should be replaced by "giving superior importance to". Sorry for the lapse.