I object, and am going to reply in a way that I'm pretty sure will get me lots of negative points, but I'm going to do so because I see that you've gotten lots of positive points:

Why are you trying to convince people? What makes you think anyone can be convinced of anything? Do you really want people to be able to convince you? Do you really think you can be convinced of anything? Trying to convince people is counter to trying to encourage unbiased thought.

The experts that make that false objection are not really capable of building on his work; especially not at the time of that objection, because they are obviously holding a belief that hinders their ability to think rationally. They certainly can endorse his work, but is that really desired if they are hindered by their beliefs? (it might be desired, I don't actually know) What makes you think average Joe's can't/won't build on or endorse his work? Why would that not be desired?

I understand you're coming from a statistical perspective, but it seems to me to be based on a false premise.

There need not be just one "true objection"; there can be many factors that together lead to an estimate.

And more than one of them may be considered decisive by themselves.