The article is not addressing what machine learning can and cannot do but how individuals and organizations conceptualize what machine learning can and cannot d

The article is not addressing what machine learning can and cannot do but how individuals and organizations conceptualize what machine learning can and cannot do. It, as the current top comment mentions, is a philosophical rather than technical argument. It doesn't matter if all machine learning can do is describe the current state of things of it is presumed by those interpreting the output to provide insight into some great and universal truth. Most science degree programs have a philosophy of science course as a degree requirement. As an engineering faculty member I have found huge resistance to and equivalent course becoming part of engineering or computer science degrees. Those degrees, instead, take an apparoch to scientific/technical knowledge that is less science and more religion. The comments here are a reminder why such courses have a place.