interdisciplinary heterodoxy

I love going to meetings where I can learn totally new stuff.
One of the joys of astrobiology is that I can wander into a session on some research way outside my specialty and learn something new and interesting.
It is like being a student again.

I also like disciplinary workshops, and big in-field meetings, don't get me wrong.
In an ideal world my conference trips would be roughly 1/3 workshops on something I am personally actively working on, preferably small workshops; another 1/3 would be to big meetings in astrophysics, giving overview and context, getting caught up on news and what is hot; and the last 1/3 would be interdisciplinary meetings where I learn random new stuff and maybe pick up new interests.

But, I am anecdotally noticing something curious.
At the big in-field meetings, the orthodoxy is presented - the review talks are given by pundits, the students aim to please the pundits and a consensus is presented.
Workshops, ideally by their nature, should be on more unsettled stuff, with contenting ideas and contradictory models presented and discussed. However, workshops tend to be all-expert meetings, so to the extent it exists, there is some consensual orthodoxy, and the new ideas start out from there.
At a meeting of experts you can't ignore convention, even if you plan to change or overthrow them, the convention, the orthodoxy, is where you start and refer back to.

At the interdisciplinary meetings, each sub-field tends to be represented by a small number of experts, maybe even only one person, and I noticed that heterodoxy is far more likely to be presented.
At some level that is fine, these are experts presenting their ideas on their field and they ought to present what they think is the state of the art.
But, I know that some of the ideas presented are controversial, possibly very wrong (in the right sort of way) and they are sometimes, too often, presented to non-experts as the orthodoxy.
Without the other experts there, people drift in their presentation to not only present their ideas, they present their ideas as the dominant ones in the field, or even the only ideas.
And at some point this becomes troublesome, there needs to be a reference back to the contending ideas in the sub-field, some perspective for the outsiders on where disagreeements and controversies are.
Some people are good about this, others not so much.

But, what really scares me, is that while I recognise this phenomenon when it comes from my sub-field, I do not when I am the outsider. I do not know which of the presentations I hear and perceive as representing the orthodoxy are actually one sided heterodoxies on some topic of controversy, except of course when the presenter explicitly notes the presence of such controversies.
I like hearing about controversies, I like to think I can make my own judgements.
It annoys me if people present controversial models, especially their own, as some sort of dominant paradigm.