Why did some later scholars criticize Scholasticism as overly concerned with technical details?

Critics often characterized Scholasticism as being overly concerned with technical details because, by the later Middle Ages, the procedures for discussing and interpreting established knowledge had become highly institutionalized. This reliance on fixed methods—such as the formal lecture and disputation—led to a temptation to perpetuate these established processes rather than seeking new insights through direct experience.12

From the Renaissance through the early 19th century, this focus was frequently dismissed as a pursuit of "sterile subtleties". Critics viewed the movement as a narrow adherence to traditional teachings and didactic methods, often criticizing the resulting texts for lacking personal immediacy and originality. This perception was reinforced by the fact that the primary task of the Scholastic enterprise was the patient, prosaic labor of organizing, classifying, and preserving the vast body of existing patristic and classical tradition. While this "scholasticity" was essential for preserving historical knowledge, it was later viewed by some as an obstacle to intellectual progress when it failed to evolve beyond its established institutional framework.31