I find it so hard to relate to HCI and UX as fields. I mean, do real designers creating great products actually subscribe to this theorising or do they just get on with it? I'm probably completely naive about all of this, but from the outside it looks like a lot of talking and a lack of doing.
1. Design also has its own "architecture astronauts", people who theorize a lot but don't get things done. They are usually in academia, since there are not many companies willing to pay for design astronauting.
2. Design, despite being more closely related to engineering, is usually expressed from the perspective of art. That's why I think most programmers have problems getting a grasp of it. The reasons are mainly historical, but fortunately people are paying more attention to more rational approaches to design (Tufte, Krug).
To me it seems the author is trying to overreach the scope of UX (when it's already huge) with vague ideas of where it should head.
Disclaimer: I work with the author, and it's suprised me how much of a 'science' it really is (hypotheses can be tested, and the results can be measured and improved)
Loosely related thought: My favorite magic vs. method treatise is Poe's "The Philosophy of Composition". How seriously he hoped to be taken and how ingenuous his motivations are fun to debate, but I love the piece.
The sort of ideas expressed in this article help set the stage for subtle design decisions.