[tpoacher]

I see where your criticism is coming from, but I think you're mostly nitpicking on the character analogy-breakdowns of the piece rather than the general nature of the argument.

As for "isn't this theoretical framework based on our observations"? Well, yes and no; as Einstein famously once noted, "it's the theory that decides what can be observed.". Obviously the reverse is also partly true and the whole thing is an iterative process, but in a sense Luke's article seems to be about the same thing as Einstein's quote: that it is fruitful to challenge the framework every now and then, rather than accept it as religion.

Specifics aside, I don't think that's an unreasonable mindset to have in science. (or other fields for that matter - a similar mantra exists in medicine: "always dare to challenge the existing diagnosis" -- exactly because people rarely think to do it)