There is a pervasive notion among science enthusiasts (and unfortunately, some scientists) that science was "done wrong" for some amount of time, and then at one point, everyone collectively stopped being stupid and started doing science correctly. No one who makes this claim seems to agree on when this happened, but it's generally agreed that it was some time after Copernicus and some time before Einstein.
It's all bullshit. Actual study of the history of science will show that the methods and arguments of scientists today aren't any better or worse than the scientists of the past, even dating all the way back past the pre-Socratic Greeks. Yes, their methods and theories had errors, but so do the methods of today, and it turns out that falsifying a theory doesn't stop people from using it. If it did, why would anyone bother learning Newtonian mechanics?
I can confidently state the author of this article has no clue what they are talking about, and I doubt that they have ever made a serious study of either the history of science or the philosophy of science. If they had, maybe they would have made an attempt to respond to some of the arguments of people who disagree with them, such as Thomas Kuhn, who also studied the history of science and arrived at the opposite conclusions: that the scientists of antiquity were just as scientific as the scientists of today, that science does not stop when it is proved wrong, but in fact continues to use the same methods as long as they provide internally consistent answers, and finally (if you're really ready to drink the Kuhn-aid) that science does not progress toward the truth, but in fact progresses toward nothing in particular. Kuhn is obviously still a very controversial philosopher, but to make a historical claim about what is and is not science and to ignore all the previous literature on philosophy of science is just ridiculous.
Oddly, the author does seem to have made a few posts about Kuhn, but they all reference some factual errors made in one of his less famous books. I'd imagine that someone at some point told this author to read Kuhn, and he used the fact that Kuhn made some minor errors once about Copernicus as an excuse not to learn anything. It seems from the few posts I looked at that this is the blog of an amateur historian who is also a poor philosopher, who fixates more on pedantry and "debunking" than on any sort of overarching intellectual ideas.