The problem with the authors argument lies in its over-simplified concept of truth. According to the article's own logic, instead of dismissing the concept of truth, we should instead build it into a more robust statement that deals with paradoxes and inconsistencies. And in rejecting traditional truth, the article conveniently reinvents it in different terms to stop it collapsing on itself.

Escaping the reality-to-truth link in our paradigm is only possible if you assume that our reality is a part of bigger reality we cannot observe, because the truth as we can observe it has a hierarchical nature. If we say that gravity is a force that pulls objects together, then we encounter lots of smaller branches of truth that occur when gravity itself is proven to be true. We established the truth of gravity beforehand by observing these smaller branches to conclude that there is a certain bigger branch these lead to. If we do not see the branches, we cannot establish anything.

Naturally, this tree of reality does not contain truth only. It contains a set of all possible statements regarding reality. Say apples fall from trees on Earth. But outside Earth, it is not what happens. Away from major gravity wells, the apple slowly approaches the tree instead. Same with observable reality, it is not necessary that statements keep their truth on higher levels which we can not observe.

Observation is not just a function of perception, but information including anything a human or machine computer can think of. You can not imagine a fourth fundamental color. It can exist on the EM spectrum, but knowing how it looks to a different organism is impossible. Take that analogy to the function of thought and see what happens. We do not know how to think of things we can not think. We can not imagine realities impossible to imagine. There is a limit to how far we can climb the tree of reality.

We use the concept of truth to predict future in our subset of reality. Say you know it to be true that it is cold in winter. Naturally, you have warm clothes, heating and food to prepare. Remove the notion of truth from that, and you operate as if that didn't matter. Cutting the link between truth and reality. Now how are you going to make any decision? You have no way to predict reality now and as a result you can not function.

There are lots of way to define and understand truth that are efficient concepts for operating in the universe. But to function without that concept in a meaningful way is impossible. You can't make machine or biological computers work without prediction, and the concept of truth is an inseparable part of that function.

The article does not explore any of these problems in enough detail. It dances around with terminology and the idea of radical philosophical thoughts being "more defensible". Perhaps there is merit in that, but this article is extremely unconvincing.