In that case, it's still a question of fact, on which reasonable people can disagree.
We have different definitions of reasonable though. Your definition is smart people who are also respectable, which is a question of signaling and thus social status. My definition of reasonable has to do with who has the most accurate beliefs, given the amount of information present.
Although I doubt either of our definitions would involve someone claiming large swaths of mathematics are invalid. Do we agree that probability theory is valid, and that the point of disagreement is on whether or not it can be applied to "real world problems" ...?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!