Well, part of what he’s getting at there is that when people say cooking according to a recipe is science, they are demonstrating lay positivism. Recipes existed, worked, and were passed down long before the scientific method was devised. Long before chemical reactions were understood in any remotely scientific way. So a recipe is not science — it’s cooking, an act which people with an inappropriately religious relationship to science claim as their own, when it long preexisted their faith. We can now understand in scientific terms how cooking works, but science doesn’t make it work, didn’t discover it, and exactly zero knowledge of the scientific method is required to make it work. My point in directing you to the article was to suggest that while my idea of what science is (an activity scientists participate in which is largely sold out to big business in our time) may be technically inaccurate on some grounds, yours may be, too. Every smart thing human beings ever did can’t be folded into science. That’s the lay positivist attitude he’s pointing to in the article.