"that only those fully indoctrinated into their mind-cult can judge it."
That is what John Horgan says in his comment section about Freudian Psychologists and String Theorists. The whole article is an interesting read, and I encourage you to read it and the rebuttal.
However, I'm thinking of Gnosticism. Lots of folks 'don't get it', thinking it's all about dualistic material/spritual divides and pretty much useless. Until they learn about it, and see the complexities and questions it raises. But they can't do that, until they learn about it.
So, is it true that "learning about it" is necessary for understanding, or is it simply switching our premises, so that the outlandish theory makes sense from a given premise? Or, in true Gnostic fashion, is it both?