the problem with the article is that it fails to define what the "information" is, i mean its nature and the way it is detected. anyway, this little anomaly shouldn't distract me from allowing me to see one of the many steps science has to take before it gets things right.
the paradox here is that science may not be a perfect science after all. scientific development will never deny that progress in understanding the universe usually demands scientists to make clean break from what has been previously accepted and embrace something totally previously considered unbelievable and absurd.
once such case was the number of blackholes in the universe. many scientists held onto the common notion that they were rare phenomena in the universe, but eventually they had to accept the observed fact that blackholes are in fact the cause of a galaxy's birth and the ones keeping them animated.
if we consider the long train of scientific history and the number of "hard science" discarded along the way, we should perhaps contemplate whether the accepted science we have now is any closer to the truth.