Still, I suspect the article's conclusion is at least partially right, even if it's a bit sensationalized, but the present evidence is fully consistent with a non-causal relationship as well.
It takes about 20 minutes for satiety to kick in - the feeling that is the opposite of hunger. The stomach takes this long to communicate with the brain. If you eat quickly, you spend longer in the window of time between when you have eaten enough and when the sensation of hunger diminishes. That's the key.
Just off the top of my head: Whether the food you consume is burned immediately or stored as fat is regulated significantly by taste sensations, as evidenced by studies where people were forced to eat diets consistent of bland-tasting (but otherwise not especially healthy) food, and lost significant weight. Also, people who eat ad libitum will gain more weight than people who consume identical amounts of food through a gastro-nasal feeding tube. Studies on livestock have shown you can promote weight-gain by adding water to dry chow, which makes it taste better but obviously does not alter its nutritional content, even though the animals are fed the exact same quantity of chow. So, it's reasonable to at least suspect that doing something that increases the taste sensation of food, such as instructing people to chew longer before swallowing, might cause weight to increase.
I don't know which of these is true with certainty. The evidence is still somewhat ambiguous.
This does nothing to address the real question, does overeating cause obesity or does obesity cause overeating? I'd be much happier if the dietary research community would stop designing experiments that are intrinsically blind to that question and start actually examining it.
("Good Calories, Bad Calories" has already been brought up, but I would point out that if there is anything to take away from that book, it is not that he has proved the point that obesity causes overeating, rather than the other way around. The point he really proves is that it is a reasonable hypothesis that fits the facts, including the experiments that have been done, and it has not been adequately tested. It has been unscientifically discarded-by-axiom. If it is put to the test and fails, so be it. But this appears to be yet another experiment that fails to distinguish between the two cases at all, and therefore is not all that interesting to me. This, BTW, is not news to Taubes, it is all he really claims, too.)