Is it just me or does the article seem to end rather abruptly as if much more was intended and perhaps accidentally left off or just published before completion?
Funny how we want to take an incredibly complex system and boil it down to 1+1=2. We think we're really advanced when we throw in 3rd or 4th step into the math equation. But not surprisingly this sort of reductionism leads to people being equally certain of exactly opposite conclusions. To the point they'll belittle the other person's simplistic understanding while completely missing the simplicity of their own model.
I think when it comes to evaluating true novelty we underestimate how much our language does our thinking for us. Which is another reason why novel ideas hide from us so well. To put them into articulated forms that can be carried through time effectively (even to communicate them to later versions of ourselves) we have to bend the meanings of the words we're using in novel ways. Not easy to do but essential to an idea's survival.