This is a dishonest argument. Frogs and pliers don’t levitate on a typical magnet in ambient conditions, so you can’t say the behavior is ‘similar’ just because ‘everything levitates in a strong enough magnetic field’. If your measuring stick can’t distinguish these two significantly different behaviors, it’s a useless measuring stick.
Also, more generally, the logic of science is statistics, not Boolean logic. We all know that
[(p —> q) and q]
doesn’t logically imply p, but still observing q makes p more likely when thinking probabilistically.
Overall I found the article to be very dismissive of weak evidence and also shortsighted when considering the potential applications that we can’t think of right now (even if those are not the typical hoped-for applications like efficient power transmission).