I don't think that naturalness is something that can be disproved, but it is not necessarily the case that finding out the universe does not work in some partic

I don't think that naturalness is something that can be disproved, but it is not necessarily the case that finding out the universe does not work in some particular way is just as useful as finding out that it does work some specific way. That is because there are so many more of the former. The issue of the article is a resource allocation problem, and there is something unethical about bending scientific prognostications (these cannot be distinguished with the label 'hypotheses') to that end. "Pursuing exciting results over the truth" doesn't come into it - no-one is accused of falsifying anything here (though it has happened elsewhere.) At worst, the truth will be delayed, though that might be the outcome of pouring resources into a bigger machine, rather than of not doing so.