The comparison the author makes with astronomy doesn't support their point at all.
First, it agrees with the notion of a burden of knowledge, by agreeing that improving the Ptolemaic model took huge amounts of time to learn its intricacies.
Secondly, the Copernican alternative worked not because it was simpler, but because the Ptolemaic model was wrong. There is never a guarantee that a model we currently is is wrong and can be replaced by a substantially simpler model. Maybe someone brilliant will come along and find a simpler model than quantum electrodynamics, but maybe they won't: it's absolutely possible that, say, QED is the right model, and we can at best make it even more complex to explain more details of phenomena.
Finally, tools only get you so far. Tools don't necessarily encode some of the scientific knowledge you need to advance fields. They are a separate track from it.
First, it agrees with the notion of a burden of knowledge, by agreeing that improving the Ptolemaic model took huge amounts of time to learn its intricacies.
Secondly, the Copernican alternative worked not because it was simpler, but because the Ptolemaic model was wrong. There is never a guarantee that a model we currently is is wrong and can be replaced by a substantially simpler model. Maybe someone brilliant will come along and find a simpler model than quantum electrodynamics, but maybe they won't: it's absolutely possible that, say, QED is the right model, and we can at best make it even more complex to explain more details of phenomena.
Finally, tools only get you so far. Tools don't necessarily encode some of the scientific knowledge you need to advance fields. They are a separate track from it.