Much more important than any particular tool/methodology/technique is how well a particular person understands and uses/implements these.

It doesn't matter nearly as much if they are doing X vs. Y. The important question is: are they doing X well or in a half-ass manner? Are they trying to do X because it's the hip new thing, but they don't really understand X in any deep way? Do they energetically talk the talk, while they hobble the walk?

The two questions at the heart of the matter: do they get stuff done while using X? How much technical debt do they incur while getting stuff done using X?

You’re conflating dogmatism for a lack of critical thinking.

It’s more important to recognize that a given tool or process is made to solve a set of problems.

If you don’t have those problems or have a better way of addressing them, you don’t need that tool or process.

The goal is to have an intelligent conversation from first principles, while still avoiding re-inventing the wheel.