Elegant conclusions can totally be arrived at in the humanities, it's just that statistical methods often aren't the best way to go about doing so. The traditional method of logical proof, which is valued just as much as data analysis in science, used to be the standard in the humanities. The human mind would compute the statistics more or less subconsciously, but would then use those empirical results to say something valuable through a process of logical induction. I think that's the key point that this article misses—it isn't that we don't want humanities to provide rational insight, it's that we want humanities to reduce its reliance on statistics and refocus on what it's historically been great at.

There's something important to be said here about the duality between logic and math, algebra and statistics, classical AI and modern DL, philosophy and science, rationalism and empiricism.