Expressing flaws doesn't require a better theory, no. By all means, do that.
Expecting others to give up their theories that work well for 99% of the problem, or even only work well for the 10% they care about, just because there's a problem with it DOES require something better AND a reason to switch.
For example, architects (technically stability engineers. Architects don't really design buildings except in the artistic sense) are still simulating Newtonian dynamics on plates that fly through empty space held up by nothing. You want them to change? No problem, but you'll have to make something better and point out why they'd want to use something better ... but, truthfully, it works pretty well.
The piece says, thing X doesn't exist, here's how it was already figured out, etc. We should find something better. I don't think it says we aren't allowed to keep it around when it is sometimes useful as a thought device.
It also reduces the religious aspect, demoting DM to simply a tool used in specific situations, "we don't have anything better at the moment."
> Without such theory, claiming DM doesn't exist is simply stupid IMO.
Expressing flaws in an idea does not require a better one in any way. The search continues.