But no, the liberality of changes like this one is what separates fluff science from actual science. There is a vast chasm of difference between stuff like this one and, say, aether theories.
People who came up with aether theories were the brightest of their ages. That is really the best they could come up with -- and the reason why it took us so long to disprove aether-based theories was that they had some bloody solid science behind them -- at least back in those ages. People were unable to come up with anything better because, for a very long time, they lacked both theoretical and experimental tools with which to conclusively prove (or disprove) their hypotheses.
We needed significant developments in mathematics, fluid mechanics and optics in order to test these theories, and we needed special relativity to come up with something better.
Whereas claims like the one this article refutes need only a correct application of double-blind testing and not falling into well-known (at least to statisticians) traps in order to be tested.
The fact that we have 180 degree spins in understanding such matters every six months is not a testament to how modern science cares only about truth. It's a testament of how important it is to publish papers.