Criticises the carefree optimism of liberal theory towards the problem of expert knowledge Argues that post-truth is here to stay, as democracy will never be based on rational argument aloneContends that we cannot overcome epistemic dependence of citizens on experts – but sometimes it can be bypassedSuggests that we need to understand the natural limitations of expert knowledge and not be easily discouraged by expert failuresThe world of post-truth is a world of intense disinformation, an offensive of pseudoscience and widespread scepticism about expert knowledge. It is a world in which the terms of the political game are imposed by illiberal democrats who undermine the authority of scientific institutions. The liberal-democratic politicians have had to take up the gauntlet thrown down to them in this way. However, according to the book's author, they have not been followed by liberal theorists. Liberal theorists have never attempted to confront the pessimistic vision of a world in which citizens cannot distinguish expert from pseudo-expert and science from pseudo-science. The dominant liberal theories are based on the assumption that citizens are either competent to participate in major political decisions or that they can easily acquire such competence. The book strikingly explores a very different perspective. How would the theory and practice of liberal democracy have to change if we assume that laypersons will never appreciate the relevance of the arguments put forward by experts?