The article acknowledges the limitedness of our reason at the moment, and promotes sufficient skepticism and evaluation of our conceived proofs (vague) — which is an INTEGRAL part of scientific inquiry. I can even argue that this resembles a perspectivist critique of the https://twitter.com/Suc_sexx/status/1348975830505054210
The problem here with 'proof' is purely semantic. Because the fact that a 'proof' can always be "subject to revision" with new information, and we can't be ABSOLUTELY certain, doesn’t mean a theory do not best describe our current reality (he explained that in the article).
There's is no absolute certainty, and that encompasses not only science but everything!
Facts and Proofs are what we conceive of as the best possible explanation of our reality, based on what we know; logical axioms, the physical world, reasoning, etc. We have conditional assurance of their reliability.
For you to say "scientific proof" is a myth, shows you read that article with a clear bias. The entire point is: we can't prove anything with ABSOLUTE certainty, so keep on discovering and questioning and discovering.
I am not a fan of scientism (I'm sure you know there's difference between scientism and the scientific method).
I do not believe natural science ALONE provides knowledge of our reality. I find it epistemologically authoritative and dogmatic.
I do not believe natural science ALONE provides knowledge of our reality. I find it epistemologically authoritative and dogmatic.