I think it isn’t inherently “bad” (until you begin to fight for “resources” i.e. academic careers - which in my mind is what this now long-standing “controversy” really boils down to) that physics/cosmology at the frontier bleeds into regions of (yet) untestable hypothesis.

It is kind of a natural progression of abstraction by defining physical objects, in the end you arrive at some endpoint like the “universe”. So, you wonder: “Hmm, in order to study it properly I need more than one. Let me see if there is some viable way to propose it. Which new predictions am I getting? Does it a better job than … ” etc

The same holds true for other frontiers like exobiology, consciousness etc. where one can easily wind up in woo-woo territory.

Hossenfelder mentions Penrose. Another prominent figure who pops up frequently is Stephen Wolfram with the means of financing himself. They are making bold claims which are most likely - surprise, surprise - false. But because the chances are astronomically or cosmologically low it is seen as somehow this high-stake game in reputation. Since there is only a tiny fractions of scientists with a lot of chips (say Noble Prize), when they get on the table the crowd cheers on.

So, unfortunately most play safe in the long term. One such strategy was/is to hide the “trouble” behind ever more sophisticated mathematical abstractions which at least undoubtedly require extraordinary and disciplined mind to be even able to grasp. Ever since Lee Smolin called bs on that I feel that string theorists, now, appear more humble, careful in their presentation and acknowledge the pitfalls. As an popular example Sean Carrol comes to my mind.

To put it constructively: level the playing field and measure your position with the same standard as you evaluate others. The more powerful, diverse and precise shots in the dark in terms of viable theories we get to test the better the chances.