Renewing our call for posts
I think this is largely correct, but I also think that there was a tendency for the worst and most extreme examples of critical theory stuff to get the most attention. Part of this was nutpicking, of course, though some of that IMO was a useful corrective, but some of it was, I think, also just enthusiastic and overspecialized young academics making a mess of things due to a lack of experience and perspective.
I remember the first time I encountered the whole "scientific facts are socially constructed" idea was in a freshman-year discussion session led by a TA who pretty obviously didn't know dick about science. I was a an arrogant asshole  physics major who didn't know that much about science either, but I definitely knew more than him, and he really couldn't even handle basic objections like, "I'm pretty sure there's a physical reality independent of social construction because I've stubbed my toe."
Now, a number of years later I encountered an academic with a similar background (online), but also some real knowledge of science, and he was able to put the argument in a context that made much more sense, and, you know, wouldn't be derailed by half-assed arguments made by obnoxious kids in their first year of college.
 Hard to believe now, I know!