As far as I can work out, the point he's making, is that you either believe in the authenticity and historicity of the book, or you believe that it's a fallacy (Quirky mentioned something about eating those mushrooms in the cow pasture). In my mind, the book of Daniel is unique. Granted, a lot of editorial activity has gone into the work, but usually one can work out the true (or logical) text by comparing the MT to the versions.
Modern scholars compare it to the Animal Apocalypse and Apocalypse of Weeks of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, and Apocalypse of Baruch, which is unfair. These books never made the grade, not being allowed in the Jewish or Christian canon. Another question is: Did they copy the book of Daniel or did the writer of Daniel copy them? Most scholars admit that Daniel is the oldest.
But I guess it comes down to the inspiration of the Scriptures. Were they "god breathed" or a product of a Jew's fertile imagination? That each one must decide for himself. Nevertheless, I do believe that scholarly criticism does not encourage faith or belief in prophecy. It does not allow for "the benefit of the doubt" either, which is a pity. According to the law a person is only proved guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is how a modern scholar puts it: "Conservatives [that's me amongst others] have argued that the critical position rests on dogmatic, rationalistic denial of the possibility of predictive prophecy. For the critical scholar, however, the issue is is one of probability." Another place he asserts: "The prophecies of Daniel [There is a problem with their nomenclature. He should say "the pseudo-prophecies of Pseudo-Daniel] can no longer serve as christological proofs; nor can the chronological schemata serve to structure universal history...." He insists: "Daniel is not a reliable source of factual information about either the past or the future," etc.
Here I have to disagree. E.g. the Hebrew term for "latter days" is 'acharith hayyamim (cf. Dan. 2:28). According to TDOT this prophetic term, today referred to as an "eschatological marker," means "the end of history as we know it." And that's something that I, and a lot of others, are hoping for. This fits in with the rest of the Bible, the theme being God's kingdom.