If a mathematical technique helps understand and predict nature, why not use it? The quote criticizing the method misunderstands it. It's certainly not "wrong" or "absurd."
I dislike the paper because it is sensationalist and highly misleading. For example, as far as I can tell, Karplus and Kroll didn't "confess" to anything (no direct quote is provided in the paper); we just have a secondhand assertion by Feynman. Nothing they did is "fraud," as the author claims - this is false and defamatory. Further, the issue got wrapped up by Petermann in 1957; the author is just annoyed that he didn't publish full details of the calculations. The suggestion that there is somehow lingering uncertainty is just wrong.
I no particular wishes for the author, other than that he cease writing bad papers.
I don't think that's a bad paper, it was quite interesting to me.
I see no valid argument in what you're saying, sorry. I also just want to point out that you used the word "just" three times in four phrases, to minimize and psychologize the author's arguments. For me, not being able to neutrally expose someone's point of view is a sign of emotional bias.
My argument is that key claims of the paper are factually incorrect. For example, there was no "confession" by Karplus and Kroll. (At least, none is cited as far as I see - please let me know if I am missing something.)
I dislike the paper because it is sensationalist and highly misleading. For example, as far as I can tell, Karplus and Kroll didn't "confess" to anything (no direct quote is provided in the paper); we just have a secondhand assertion by Feynman. Nothing they did is "fraud," as the author claims - this is false and defamatory. Further, the issue got wrapped up by Petermann in 1957; the author is just annoyed that he didn't publish full details of the calculations. The suggestion that there is somehow lingering uncertainty is just wrong.
I no particular wishes for the author, other than that he cease writing bad papers.