Sorry, but that is not what the article says at all. The purpose of measuring the past is predicting the future and no one in that threads claims different.
What is claimed though and I absolutely agree is that you should not predict the future in absolute, precise, single values.
If I go from one city to the next by car, I will say "I'll be there in 2-3 hours". And people understand that to be an estimate. I might arrive in 1:45h. Or 2:30. or maybe even 3:20h if it's worse than expected. It was clear from the start that it was an estimate from the plain fact that I gave a range.
Now if you tell people you will arrive by car at 15:48 (because that is the exact average over all your past trips added to the exact time you plan to leave), then they'll be disappointed if you are 5 minutes late. Or 10 minutes early. You said 15:48, why didn't you keep your promise?
So units matter. Saying it takes "about an hour" is different from "59 minutes". The first is a rough guess and people get that from the language, the second is perceived as precise and accurate and people will hold the person accountable for that.
So if your velocity is measured and you have 30, 50, 40 in three sprints and 300 left, do not average it all and claim it will be done in 7½ more sprints. That implies precision that is just not there. The truth is that the data means it should be done in 10 sprints worst case and 6 sprints best case. So go with that and say "it should be done in 6-10 sprints". The wording alone already implies that it is an estimate, not a precise measurement.