In fact, the article contradicts its very title:

> The truth is, despite its widespread moniker, Gaia is not really a hypothesis. It’s a perspective [...].

I just wanted to add a counter point that there exists lots of serious(ly-taken) science that cannot be based merely on hypotheses and on attempts of proving or disproving those.

Each practical research project starts by defining the context and bounds of research. It seems to me that he is proposing the adaptation of a more general strategy when defining the context. He does not make any claims other than that the limited context apparently present in some astrobiological, geological, etc., studies might cause you to miss crucial things. A very hard claim to prove or disprove a priori but this does not render the viewpoint useless.

I do not think the viewpoint itself is useless. I was just trying to point out that you cannot even attempt to prove it, since it is not a hypothesis. And the title of that article strongly suggests it is a prove to convince the reader.