I think the idea is interesting and persuasive. The examples given seem, on the basis of the article, backed up by reasonable experimentation. The issue I have is wondering whether this is just a negative trait as painted by the article. People's willingness to try things with over confidence is surely also in some ways a good thing because if they waited till they had knowledge, then by definition they would never do them.
As to this being why we have crises such as clumate change, and this being because 'science enthusiasts', whatever they may be, are somehow just over confident, this strikes me as having a number of issues but I will concentrate on two.
First, the article is about using a scientific approach to analyse how we evaluate knowledge, and its recommendation is that very scientific approach of testing things. As someone who in the main has earned their money by testing things, this seems fine but also highlights that the scientific approach is based around checks and balances
The second issue is more about a perception of things being caused by science, and on concentrating on what are seen as the negative consequences. Food shortages are more ab issue of us having an expanded population and a lack of a political way to share food but it's only via use of science that we can maintain the population both through improvements in food production, and in health.
I feel the need to go Rumsfeldian, and note that there are things we know we know, or rather think we know, things we think we don't think we know but know, things we think we know we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know. The last of these is by far the largest pot but the only way we have to reduce it is science and reason. IWe will always have to action without full knowledge but it's a mistake to think that inaction is not itself a choice of action.
