Again, I think you're giving the author the benefit of the doubt when it's not warranted. Your paraphrasing "science itself is insufficient to understand the world" is code for dualism.
I forgot to add the reference in the comment above but tacit means what I said it meant. I quoted directly from Wiktionary [1]. I'll do so again here:
Adjective
tacit (comparative more tacit, superlative most tacit)
1. Expressed in silence; implied, but not made explicit; silent.
tacit consent : consent by silence, or by not raising an objection
2. (logic) Not derived from formal principles of reasoning; based on
induction rather than deduction.
I chose the "logic" interpretation as it seemed the most appropriate given the context.
I don't have any strong opinion about if the author is a proponent of dualism. I'd note that Quantum Bayesianism[1][2] (discussed the other day on HN) seems much more mystical than this, and yet is usually considered within the realms of science.
I build neural networks in my day job. They encode tacit information because they are "based on induction rather than deduction". But that's not anything mystical - it's just learning from data, and it's not a dog whistle towards mysticism either.
I forgot to add the reference in the comment above but tacit means what I said it meant. I quoted directly from Wiktionary [1]. I'll do so again here:
I chose the "logic" interpretation as it seemed the most appropriate given the context.[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tacit