One of my problems with this line of argument is that it provides a sort relativism of opinion, every opinion is just as valid as any other. And then you're at

One of my problems with this line of argument is that it provides a sort relativism of opinion, every opinion is just as valid as any other. And then you're at post-truth and post-fact sadly... If Carlsen is a fake, so is every chess player he has ever played, the whole system? Epidemiologists lied about masks (or they really didn't know better 3-5 months into the pandemic, also not good), discount everything else said? I've heard these arguments often lately :/ Experts not being "real" implies that there's no absolute expertise whatsoever and implicitly legitimizes dismissing any argument whatsoever on a single failure and allows people to believe that any opinion (including their own) is just as valid. I think this is in part to blame for our "post-fact/post-truth" phenomenon. Many people decide experts or government were wrong/have lied before and can no longer be trusted. And when an outsider comes along with contrarian but convenient ideas, why not believe them, nobody else is to be trusted after all and every opinion is valid. Any expert opinion can be wrong but the prior is that an expert opinion is much more likely to be correct than your own, or a politician's, or a blogger's. NB: I want to note that the author's point is much more nuanced and (more importantly!) narrow, but it's not evident from the title or a superficial reading.