Leaving aside the vast semantic Gulf between what Feynman was talking about and things being "bollocks", how do you evaluate the truthiness of novel arguments?

Leaving aside the vast semantic Gulf between what Feynman was talking about and things being "bollocks", how do you evaluate the truthiness of novel arguments? The typical solution here is domain experts, aka peer review. The author's point is that they don't trust peer review, so you need some other method that's both practical and universal. I can't imagine what that could possibly look like.