Doesn't have the best presentation of science, for example it contains the following error:
'According to the standard model of quantum mechanics, neither particle has
a definite position or momentum before it is measured; but by measuring
the momentum of one particle, the physicist instantaneously forces the other
particle to assume a fixed position—even if it is on the other side of the
galaxy.'
This is completely and totally wrong.

I've noticed that people who are quick to talk negatively about the limitations of knowledge tend to have more limited knowledge than the people they are trying to critique.
People who bring up that science doesn't prove things often neglect that you don't really need absolute proof to have a fair degree of confidence that, yes, we should act like the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
Of course there is Godel, but Godel had a completeness theorem as well as his incompleteness theorem and there's no real reason to think the axiomatic system of our (As far as we can observe and interact with) finite universe has the kind of unwanted indirect self referencing that leads to incompleteness... If nothing else, it makes no sense for a part of a universe to not be part of the universe, so translating 'valid statements' to physical bodies and their motions (that is, if we don't assume the laws of physics are written 'outside' of the universe with indirect referencing, and instead that particles can be thought of as having behaviors all on their own simply from existing, kind of like the difference between writing '2 fingers' and holding up 2 fingers) leads to a contradiction if we somehow get an incompleteness there.