Hm, sorry, I overreacted somewhat. I do agree with the conclusion that the article presents, that scientific method brings great value, but that it's not enough

Hm, sorry, I overreacted somewhat. I do agree with the conclusion that the article presents, that scientific method brings great value, but that it's not enough, because there are many places we are not able to apply it. I'm however afraid of some arguments and claims the author uses to support their thesis, such as: "[person X] was a victim of the scientific method". They were not a victim of the scientific method, but of people who abused the scientific method. The conclusion is correct that the output of the scientific method as is practiced in our imperfect world, by imperfect people, cannot be zealously believed without scrutiny. (Scrutiny is in fact one of the pillars of the method!) But saying: "a victim of the scientific method" instead of: "a victim of errors in application of the scientific method" is reverse, misleading and dangerous. In other words: if someone doesn't follow, say, fire prevention guidelines, and starts a fire, it is misleading and socially dangerous to say that a person burnt by the fire was a victim of the fire prevention guidelines!