Nick Rowe suggests heterodox critics of mainstream economics do it here.
I think there are still a lot of people out there who have that still offer bad critiques of mainstream economics, but hopefully there's a marginal improvement. One of the nice things about actually reading textbooks is that you really understand what the difference between models and reality means for economists. There are always all kinds of notations about the nature and limits of simplification, and when the evidence does and doesn't corroborate the model. A lot of critiques of the mainstream work off of the presumption that the distinction between models and reality is ignored, and that can easily be remedied by reading a textbook.
There are more technical questions that can be resolved too, though. I used to get comments about utility theory and ordinal vs. cardinal preferences from the Austrians all the time. I don't hear that as much anymore, and I like to think it's because of the time I got fed up and walked through what Varian says about ordinal preference relations being represented by cardinal utility functions which have no particular psychological interpretation attached to them. When you actually see mainstream texts saying that you realize what B.S. places like the Mises Institute have been putting out about these issues.
It's not ultimately a solution, but it's a great start.