I first thought the article was a bit of a fluff piece, but after seeing this thread and the misunderstanding and over-simplification, it does seem apropos and

I first thought the article was a bit of a fluff piece, but after seeing this thread and the misunderstanding and over-simplification, it does seem apropos and worth discussing. The toolkit that makes a scientist does not necessarily make a philosopher of science and vice-versa. Thankfully I am neither so I can see both sides :) (and the comments section on the nytimes site is a mixed bag as well)