The essay as a whole has several interesting moments. Though rehabilitations of Kuhn like this remain troubling:

> In Kuhn’s view, reality is out there, but it doesn’t speak our language. It remains forever alien, non-linguistic, regardless of how well we seem to describe its various parts.

"Reality is indescribable" becomes a bit of a liar's paradox. Why should anyone think the sentence is an accurate description of the world, if accurate descriptions of the world are in fact out of reach?

Of course, it's possible this essay is a sometimes insightful and sometimes poor critique of a separate critique, that in turn is sometimes insightful and sometimes poor, and in turn comments on a treatise that wavers between obvious and overgeneralized depictions of scientific discovery.

Nobody's perfect.