I don't take claims without evidence as a rule, and he didn't present any evidence. His case is especially problematic because he is making strong claims about a fairly well-studied field in which there is not a clearly dominant theory.
If he's not intending to present what he's saying as fact, he should say so.
You're right. I added a note to the original post:
note: I notice my writing could use some nuance. Painting an extreme is just a style of writing which helps bring across a point. Obviously there are things that are objectively less fun to do.
If he's not intending to present what he's saying as fact, he should say so.