This seems to draw a few too many conclusions from what is probably a movement primarily populated or at least driven by people who are mentally ill, probably mostly paranoid schizophrenia. There's several major such memesets, including the "hollow Earth" set, the "aliens are in control of the government" sets (plural, there are multiple massively contradictory such sets), and any number of sets that have attracted no other adherents but are equally epistemologically closed, such as the Time Cube.

We often celebrate Occam's Razor, and it is certainly a valuable heuristic, but one of the appealing things about science is how deep it goes and how complicated it can be while still producing correct predictions. For instance, it is difficult to imagine how the science of genetics could possibly be completely false and yet for it to continue producing the results it does. I think a lot of this stems from a mindset that simply can not engage with complexity and sees the world fundamentally from a simplistic perspective, and from that point of view, anything goes. I think a lot of people here will know what I mean by the idea that you can explain anything with "God did it" or "God wills it". But that's not really a "religion problem", it's actually a cognitive problem that when combined with religion produces that. It can easily be combined with other things as well to produce an epistemologically closed system in which ultimately everything boils down to "That is true because I momentarily rationalized it to be that way as a simple answer to maintain my pre-existing belief."

You can't disprove that the Earth is flat to somebody by taking them up in a spaceship if they truly believe they are "really" on the ground and everything outside is just a Hollywood movie beamed on to the windws, and they simply don't know, understand, or even care what the acceleration meant. You can't even prove anything by contradiction if somebody refuses to hold more than one thing in their head at a time. There's "cognitive dissonance" and then there's not even being able to hold multiple ideas in their head at once in the first place.

This isn't new, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and if there's an interesting story here I don't even think it's about how it's becoming more popular (at the very least I'd need to see some stats), but about how the Internet allows such people to find each other.

But to the article's credit, it at least avoids the usual trap most articles of this ilk fall into and doesn't contain a "bad idea that deserves to die" in its list that is probably true. I could quibble with "the efficient market hypothesis caused the market crash"; I'd say it's a lot more along the lines of "A economic modeling paradigm that happens to contain the idea of the efficient market hypothesis caused the economic crash (and for that matter the utterly failed subsequent recovery)", where the primary problems with the model profoundly probably lie elsewhere, but it's at least still in the neighborhood of "a bad idea that deserves to die".