Conventional Vs Speculative

Dr. Sexton struck a chord with me the other day in class when he made a comment somewhere along the lines of "conventional" wisdom being not very deep and even obvious, where "speculative" wisdom on the other hand is much more interrogative, and important, and worth your time. Now before I continue, I would like to say that Dr. Sexton did later reconfigure his stance slightly, that conventional wisdom is not entirely trivial. And on this, I would like to elaborate:

What we have defined as "conventional" wisdom in class, I tend to value much more then the "speculative" wisdom that has been praised in our class discussions. The interrogative, question asking, type wisdom, in my eyes, stems from a very childish curiosity and has no real value. It takes no wisdom at all to ask a question, only a misunderstanding. Like when you are attempting to explain something to a child and after every answer you provide the child responds with "why?" and they cycle never ends. The child wants you to explain every detail and is never satisfied. By the logic we've established, this child must be some sort of "Wisdom God" simply because of the questions they never stop asking. Now, before you get ahead of me, I'm not saying that "conventional" wisdom has the answers to everything, but it does have an answer, or view, or opinion. To continue with the theme of my previous two posts, lets look at Theodicy for example. Which has more wisdom: Asking the question "why do bad things happen to good people?" or the discussion and attempt at explaining the question? In my opinion, it's the ladder. But apparently I'm vastly outnumbered by my classmates.