This article sets up a strawman argument and then attempts whataboutry to prove her thesis. She is neither an expert in the philosophy of science, philosophy,

This article sets up a strawman argument and then attempts whataboutry to prove her thesis. She is neither an expert in the philosophy of science, philosophy, or any of the fields she is critiquing. She also fails represent what science actually is: a way to organise the best set of information we have collected thus far. Science has never claimed to be the absolute truth on anything, and that an implied assertion the author is attempting to make. In the end, the author is only able to prove that science, like all human endeavours, is imperfect. She let all of us down by failing to say what she would replace it with, or simply articulate reasonable boundaries through which science ought to be seen.