I strongly agree with you, in the sense that many papers provide far fewer details than they should, and reading them is considered something of a hazing ritual for students and postdocs. (I understand that this is more common in specialties other than my own.)

The blog post seems to be asserting a rather extreme point of view, in that even the example I gave is (arguably!) unacceptable to present without any proof. That's what I'm providing a counterpoint to.