A theoretical discussion, such as the article's, isn't trying to nail down true or false. The discussion is rooted in and follows established truths along the way to explore potential new possibilities. This is what theorizing is. If we simply sat around discussing facts and non-facts we'd never get anywhere with discovery.
A question such as "What's true and what's false?" does not prompt for knowledge expanding discussion. We want to ask things like:
* What exists as scientific fact now?
* Is what exists now provable by scientific method or is it still in theory stage?
* What seems likely and/or possible as the next steps?
* Can we test anything in the resulting discussion with scientific method to prove them?
I've read a lot of these, but it usually feels more like we're glossing over Aesop's fables with a veneer of evolutionary theory. It's interesting to read about what happens, but all the suspect explanations in the story detract from it for me.
A question such as "What's true and what's false?" does not prompt for knowledge expanding discussion. We want to ask things like:
* What exists as scientific fact now?
* Is what exists now provable by scientific method or is it still in theory stage?
* What seems likely and/or possible as the next steps?
* Can we test anything in the resulting discussion with scientific method to prove them?