This article managed to hit two classic science journalism cliches in just the first few paragraphs.

(1) “Someone hypothesizing a very dramatic theory with weak evidence was considered wrong by most colleagues but later vindicated when strong evidence emerged”. (No mention of thousands of other dramatic hypotheses that turned out wrong.)

(2) “You may have heard in unsophisticated popularization that [philosophical claim ultimately hinging on semantic distinction] was false, but really it’s true [assuming my preferred semantics]”.

Aren't we all tired of this yet? Aren’t science journalists embarrassed by this stuff?