I thought that the article said some important things. Semantics play a role in science and definitions are important to convey empirical pursuits. Science is about discovery, not platitudes. The only scientific data that is credible has to be ascertained by scientific consensus, which is subject to change when later information is gained.

That said, I have met some pretty ignorant PHD's in my time. Many from seminaries
and religious institutions.

Neils Bohr said that those who think they understand quantum physics, don't understand quantum physics. The point of that statement is that whether you hold a PHD or not, it is important to truly assess the information that you are given and be open enough to decide that it was wrong if proved otherwise. To me that's the constructive use of science.

It's also easy to find junk science and some of it is manufactured by PHD's.