If the intent to advance a hypothesis for public scrutiny was declared explicitly, indicating the basis for forming the hypothesis (or where it was found, if not originated by the hypothesis-advancer), then I think there would be interactions with experts rather than an avalanche of non-experts repeating slogans (with no indication of how or where they found the adage).
That sort of transparency may make the difference among a set of choices including "that's so ridiculous it's not worth replying", "that's ridiculous but maybe both parties (and other readers) might learn something from the discussion of why it's ridiculous", and "we can take this seemingly-ridiculous hypothesis somewhat seriously and determine where and how it goes wrong, and whether a more formal exploration (in the sense of 'write it up as something approaching a draft paper') might be fruitful".
Experts can learn in a good faith ELI5/ELI12/ELI25 discussion, sometimes about their own field (e.g. the expert might arrive at some personally-useful intuition while explaining some technical procedure), but more often about how to communicate more effectively with nonexperts.
More pejoratively, advancing an unusual hypothesis in a field that one does not understand, leaning on a third-party idea that one does not disclose, and treating the unusual hypothesis as requiring disproof is unlikely to be fairly described as "good faith".
But the scientific method applies to all aspects of life, not just science-y things. When I wrote "Or... you [might] want to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to public scrutiny" I was actually doing just that: advancing a hypothesis to see if it would stand up to scrutiny, specifically, the hypothesis that one reason one might engage in a discussion on the internet is to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to scrutiny.
