You may or may not be "right" in this particular case, but in general it's stupid to assume philosophers in the HN audience won't be drawn out to comment on such an article.
For example, defining just what is and is not "science" or "the scientific method" is something that scientists and philosophers of science have been working on for centuries. But this thread is full of HN randos basically chiming in with "here's my grade-school textbook's definition, guess we don't need all those so-called experts, lol". The level of not just ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, HN users routinely display in this kind of conversation is frankly staggering.
Edit: Much cosmology and some theoretical physics seem pretty iffy to me, but at least there's the possibility of falsifiable hypotheses.
Also, there's seems to be some attachment to the idea that truth can be proven.
That's true. But that does not mean that the problem is unsolvable, and it does not mean that the problem has not been solved. It has. Popper solved it.
The article makes the point that knowing what something is and defining it are different. He then repeats that claim about 55 times, and says nothing else about science at all, certainly nothing about attempting to define the scientific method.
(I don't really want to spend time arguing about Popper or Lakatos here. But that's not relevant to the content of the article at all.)
(and the comments section on the nytimes site is a mixed bag as well)