Heh. From the article:

Does all of this hold for my papers, too? Of course. The most I can claim is that I am hyper-aware of my own epistemic frailty, and have a litany of self-imposed safeguards. But I totally understand why my critics would look at my best papers and say, “Meh, doesn’t really prove anything.”

I stopped reading before I got to that point thanks to the author’s argument on account of I took his advice. Thanks for the datum.

He's asking for two papers to demonstrate that it is worth delving into the literature of an entire field. It's not clear that it is even meaningful to ask how it applies to the work of any particular individual author within the field.