As the article addresses, if the boundary between science and non-science is fuzzy, then in a way it ironically mirrors the uncertainty so intrinsic to developm

As the article addresses, if the boundary between science and non-science is fuzzy, then in a way it ironically mirrors the uncertainty so intrinsic to development of quantum theory itself and echoed across the broader landscape of disciplines. Hardly a surprise that human activity, even one as exalted as real science, reflects human nature which is a subset of all nature. What science has taught and made us so much more aware of, is how much uncertainty is a central, inescapable feature of the human condition, yet it is the fact of life we resist most strongly. So it's unsurprising scientists (and the progress of science) have often stumbled on the merely human side of things, we are social creatures, and such attributes are not removed just because we are "doing science", much less when individuals become celebrities on account of it. Seems to me the essence of the scientific approach is the willingness to say "I don't know" when we don't know, and to own up to mistakes or wrong conclusions when conclusions turn out to be incomplete or misguided. Well maybe it would be better not to be so firm about conclusions anyway, as the article points out, history has shown that whatever we regard as "facts" at a particular time are at best temporary rest stops on the path of increasing knowledge.