You are misunderstanding how "folk theory" is used in this context. Homeopathy (which I'll take as a stand-in for bad science) has nothing to do with folk theo

You are misunderstanding how "folk theory" is used in this context. Homeopathy (which I'll take as a stand-in for bad science) has nothing to do with folk theory. Think instead of "folk theory" as the informal models we use to interact with the world and to communicate with others about the world. For example, a former employer of mine had problems reported with an internal search facility used by a branch of the customer service team. A coworker and I shadowed members of this team (ala contextual interview) to learn about their work and workflow. We were very interested to find that each user of this system had formed their own folk theory about the idiosyncrasies of the (very difficult to use) existing software, theories which let them get their jobs done. These theories had little to do with the inner workings of the software machine and everything to do with the tasks to be accomplished. As such, creation of folk theory happens automatically in virtually any environment where humans use tools and processes. Even when this theory is backed by "science" or "inside knowledge", what emerges is still the working practice, mental models, and language forms of a folk theory. Back to the article's point then: the idea of invisible interface is problematic because it denies the formation and elevation of culture (folk theory) that will naturally form around an interface.