I certainly read Nietzsche differently to this author (and probably Kierkegaard too by the sound of it). I think a point both of them made was that truth can only exist within the context of an agreed upon set of axioms. If you accept that you can’t prove your axioms, then your not accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally valid, you’re only accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally capable of being proven (as in, equally not capable at all). From that perspective it’s easy to see why you might reject dogmatism.
I've also read Nietzsche different from this post, and my professor taught it different.
Things like talking about power in the article seem more related to people that came after Nietzsche. Something more like Foucault.
I also don't think he's really concerned with mathematical versions of truth.
I think there's probably a good way to interpolate between Nietzsche and the programming world. In the sense of believing in things because the community does. That's probably another discussion.
> If you accept that you can’t prove your axioms, then your not accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally valid, you’re only accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally capable of being proven (as in, equally not capable at all).
Afaik this is related to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, so all you can say that within the axiom set you can't prove that there is no contradiction. (Note that this doesn't mean there is a contradiction, but you can't prove there is or there isn't any.)
