I think the idea of answering your critics with further research and experimentation is becoming a more mainstream idea these days. For one, it shows that you are basing your assertions on real observations, not just making them up, but it also shows quite clearly that you are a rational human being that can be reasoned with. If your critics are nothing but froth-at-the-mouth trolls, you come out on top even if they are right in their criticism.
I also think it is easier to gather and respond to criticism these days, thanks to the internet, so if you're revisiting an idea, you can draw on a wide range of feedback to see what angles you should take next. Mythbusters do it. Lifehacker did it with Mastercheap. We should all do it when challenged. It's the height of rational responses.
Mokalus of Borg
PS - This does assume your critics have something of substance to say.
PPS - If you remove the name-calling and venom and there's still something there, it might be worth responding.