I am completely with the author on his defense of the reality of tacit knowledge, but his argument against deliberate practice depends on pedantic, hair-splitti

I am completely with the author on his defense of the reality of tacit knowledge, but his argument against deliberate practice depends on pedantic, hair-splitting definitions that would be better presented as second-order refinements applicable in certain circumstances, such as when you are "in a field where no ‘highly-developed, broadly accepted training methods’ exist." It may be that this style of presentation is a reaction to highly specific claims that some proponents of deliberate practice insist are universal truths.