Yes. I have been most direct and frank on my statement. Is that really the word you wish to use?
Just because somebody is a respected scholar is, in my books, insufficient reason to accept what they say in all cases. Scholarship is one thing, and though it overlaps the "Dhamma", the two terms are not synonymous. In some - not all - cases of scholars, though there is an understanding of the word, there is little experience with what it means.
eg. I see time and time again the struggles that some "famous scholars" make about describing basic meditative states, for instance. It is obvious they've never meditated before, or at least no further than the most basic of meditation.
eg. Or, for those who a priori assume that teachings such as rebirth, knowledge of others' minds, and even the elimination of defilements and attainment of nirvana, are ultimately just "myth" and "superstitious belief" - in other words, there is no such thing in truth, these a priori assumptions on their part make them then come to conclusions about the Dhamma that are not in conformity with the tradition. (Not that the tradition is a priori infallible - I wish to point out a priori assumptions.) For instance, they could not accept the content of a sutta wherein a deva speaks to the Buddha, so have to come up with some other explanation, the most basic being "this is a latter invention", "this is an attempt to subvert brahmanic teachings to the Buddhist cause", etc. Or, when the Buddha knows the mind of a prospective disciple and teaches appropriately, they a priori reject this as possible, and so have to come up with some other explanation.
Anecdotally, I recall one "famous scholar" saying that "although the Buddha and buddhist believe in rebirth", he himself did not, because he "had not a shred of evidence" for it. Not a shred? This scholar could benefit from broader reading at least, and spending some serious time with yogins of deep attainments. Even if the evidence does not convince them entirely, it will leave one thinking that there are at least some "shreds", and agnosticism may be more honest than out-right rejection.
Just as those bhikkhus chosen by Mahakassapa to compile the canon at the first convocation were chosen for having both spiritual attainment and knowledge of the teachings, so too should we nowadays first begin with the teachings of those who have both sides.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: .