Cute... What - no images of Cartman dressed as Hitler to portray the dogma being espoused here?
It does not diminish the created work if a photographer gets the results he likes by measuring out chemicals as a pinch of this, a dash of that and half a handful of the other.
Don't trivialize the art -
No one is arguing to trivialize the art of photography. If one wishes to practice it as one would when mixing magic potions, then by all means they should do so.
It's just that when one gest results that are not to one's own expectations or satisfaction, then where does one go? You've fulfilled your desire to work to the level of technical complexity you want in your work. Fine.
Nicholas, I'm sure you've noticed how many posts are from people having issues with their photographic art, needs, and desires, and how many of those issues have a technical component to them? And how perhaps a better understanding of the technical side of photography is needed to solve these issues? There's certainly a lot of that going around here. In fact, most people seem to like the level of technical expertise here at APUG.
And you don't have to be up to date in the latest modifications to latent image theory or any other of the many highly technical aspects of photography as a science, but having an understanding and practicing good darkroom practices sure can help make you a better photographer.
It's a lot like using a darkroom meter. Absolutely no need for it, but they sure can make your life a lot easier. (And I've got one of your meters and I love it!) Same thing with using repeatable methods in your darkroom. Certainly, you can be as sloppy as you want, but your life may be a lot easier if you follow more precise and repeatable techniques.
That's really the only arguement being made here.