My supervisor gave a lot of feedback (in actuality they are mostly complaints) about a part of my thesis (while I have let others read my work and they were more understanding of what I wrote). There are a few helpful things but overall I found lots of her comments are related to not having a deep understanding about the science and the "end goal" of such experiment i.e. how the data can be used to best contribute the world (She is not a big expert in this area of research albeit having some experience).
She seems to dwell excessively on the "writing side" i.e. simply write a publishable "technical report" following what others have reported in similar experiments (which there are tonnes of things I dont like and I am not alone, there are numerous critique papers in this field of research that criticizes how things are unreliable. She attributed it as I have not read others' works because my format and content seem to deviate from others, but in fact I have read tonnes of them but I just found too many flaws).
I am more on writing for a full account and for the sake of science and advances (I know it may sound naive, but I really gave a lot of thoughts before I decide how my data should be used and interpreted but she thought they are excessive and didnt understand why I need to write them). While her comments may be useful in the sense of publishing a manuscript in a certain journal, however, I am under the impression that a thesis should be more free and more of a full account of what I can make the most out of my research, rather than straight up a manuscript catering to a certain journal.
However, there is no way I can pass my thesis without passing my supervisor, so how should I approach it?