I don't have the time to get too deeply into these arguments now, but I did want to at least bring up the issue, since we're joining the cacophony of unedited, unfiltered voices out there. Firstly: I have a lot of faith in amateurs. Amateurs (who, like me, are sometimes also professionals/experts, depending on what they're producing) create many beautiful and useful things. They don't necessarily create the same beautiful and useful things that accredited experts do, which is probably a good thing. Secondly: the Internet isn't really unfiltered. It's more of a cross between a complete free-for-all and the academic process of peer review. We cite each other by linking to pages, find networks of shared interests, critique and build a conversation.
Blogging isn't the same as publishing in a journal or presenting a paper, but I feel that it can still provide something useful, and hopefully beautiful.