I think the argument he's making isn't that it's perfect but instead that this logic doesn't hold. Old techniques are not inherently bad. They're only bad if we

I think the argument he's making isn't that it's perfect but instead that this logic doesn't hold. Old techniques are not inherently bad. They're only bad if we actually did discover something new in the meantime. In this case I think we have learned since then, but the article doesn't say that; it just says the old stuff is old and thus bad.