Max Planck established the principles of quantum theory in the early 1900's, and won a Nobel for it in 1918. But that aside, I think Egginton misinterprets the impact of the Uncertainty Principle somewhat, and is conflating a few ideas. Einstein had already demonstrated with Special Relativity that paradox's of space and time (the relativity of simultaneity ) are a physical truth (although he wasn't the first to postulate it), and I think these ideas are in part what Egginton is getting at when he says:

namely, that there can be no such thing as a pure observation, one free of the changes imposed by time.

and also when it comes to the notion that a history is essential for synthesizing knowledge of the present, I think he is somewhat mixing the Uncertainty Principle with the observer effect, which speaks to the role of an observer on perceived physical reality.

The Uncertainty Principal was not so much a description of a new behavior, but a formulation of the inter-dependency of wave-like properties of matter. In short, the statistical properties of matter were somewhat understood (Schrödinger's equation preceded the UP), and the value of the UP is that it suggested how these properties were proportional to one another. The quantum paradoxes themselves preceded the UP by a bit.

At any rate, I think it's silly to separate Philosophy from Physics when it comes to these types of questions. Thought experiments led to these concepts and experiments, and philosophy is a part of physics. Just because Kant didn't perform experiments doesn't mean that he wasn't asking scientific questions.