"1. It assumes that knowledge is a thing produced by some smart guy or gal, and we need to cherish that brilliant person's insights. In my view, this completely misrepresents how knowledge develops. Especially in scientific fields, knowledge is a communal process that emerges from collaborations and conflict among many different people; it is not a nugget of wisdom created by an individual."
But even if there is collaboration, you cannot abstract from real individuals who develop ideas. Your 'communal process' seems to be an evasion of human agency in the development of ideas. (Little wonder that you do not like Freud's theories which all turn on the formation of personality. If you do not believe in personality then you don't need Freud.)
More to the point, Freud the person is being rubbished to rubbish those ideas we associate with Freud.
Then Miles says:
"2. Imagine if physicists took the attitude about Newton that Kenneth does about Freud above: "People say the Newtonian conception of time and space are dead, but Newton was brilliant, he was an important physicist, therefore we shouldn't replace his concept of time and space with new, incompatible ideas (e.g., curvature of spacetime around massive bodies)". Today's wisdom is tomorrow's naive misunderstanding. If that applies to the Newtonian conception of time and space, that surely applies to Freud."
But this is a very bad analogy in all respects. First, it is not obvious in which sense Freud has been superseded. Second it is not true to say that Newtonian space is redundant. Newton's theories are a good account of space in all but the sub-atomic level. Einstein doesn't cancel out Newton, he only amends him.