Typically for this type of article the merits of "Scrum" are debated without Scrum first being defined, thereby making any reasonable appraisal impossible, and inviting a "your doing it wrong" conclusion.
At this point I am genuinely unsure whether this is some sort of master-level content-marketing trolling which is expertly crafted to goad engagement from senior engineers, or whether it is just sloppy, misguided, business-school nonsense.
Defining "scrum" in a debate-club fashion here is meaningless and is actually a valid strategy to discredit any criticism of it.
1. Scrum being a "philosophy" itself isn't clearly defined.
2. Different orgs practice Scrum differently, hence the more specifically you define Scrum, the less of the practice falls under that definition.
3. Best definition in this context is "set of practices most orgs call Scrum", which might as well be omitted.
And all of that has no bearing on the fact, that if team leadership busts out Scrum boards and Jira tickets more often than discussing problems, teaching/promoting knowledge and figuring out the best product design, then it's probably a mediocre shitshow.