But there isn't a lot of room to respond with substance because the article is, did I mention, nonsense.

There is a reason: Several paths led to some of the more central topics in probability and statistics. Such paths included gambling, astronomical observations, psychological testing, signal processing, control theory, quality control, 'statistical' physics, quantum mechanics, mathematical models in the social sciences, experimental design, especially in agriculture, mathematical finance, and more. In addition there is now a very solid, polished field of probability, stochastic processes, and their statistics,

Some of these paths got lost in the swamp on their way to some reasonably clear understanding. For the solid material, so far that is rarely taught: The prerequisites need quite a lot of pure math, and then the pure math departments rarely follow through with the probability, stochastic processes, and statistics.

Early in my career, I was dropped into parts of the swamp, but later I got the rest of the pure math prerequisites and good coverage of the solid, polished material.

So, at this point I see both the swamp and the solid, polished material.

Net, the paper is from the swamp, and I responded with just a little of the solid, polished material.

For the swamp, not a lot of discussion is justified. The best response is the one I gave: The stuff from the swamp is nonsense. That may sound harsh, but it's on the center of the target.