My understanding is that he wraps Twitter hot takes in an aura of credibility through narrative and authority without necessarily providing any proof. So in that way I’m skeptical. And it’s also ironic that an article about post-truth lifts up those kinds of ideas.

On the other hand, you could argue that at a certain philosophical high level, you can’t use current generation paradigms to meaningfully explore next generation paradigms anyway – so how else are we gonna intuit the world we’re transitioning into? I suspect that to explain emerging social phenomena we’re going to have to adopt some strange ideas, whether it’s neo-religious, postmodernism or Harari-style scientism. Pick your flavor I guess..