I assume you mean because it conflates modern day scholasticism, science, empiricism, and making shit up under one broad heading of "knowledge creation"?
There is no way to predict the growth of future knowledge. If there was it would be equivalent to already having said knowledge.
Whether people do or don't create some specific piece of knowledge is solely down to what problems they have, and whether we choose (individually or as a species) to attempt solve them or not.
Our fallible knowledge is the byproduct of us solving problems.
I agree specific knowledge 'products' are difficult to predict. That science would grow beyond the capacity of any individual researcher to keep up with its field however, has long been contemplated [0].
Yet when a field is plateauing or saturated is difficult to say, and I don't find it a compelling argument for closing up shop and calling it a day as the article is suggesting.
