In general, anything that's at the bleeding edge of theoretical understanding and intersects with commercial interest or draws social/media hype has a relativel

In general, anything that's at the bleeding edge of theoretical understanding and intersects with commercial interest or draws social/media hype has a relatively low probability of standing the test of time. Whether that's replicability, applicability, or just validity. The most exciting hypotheses tend to go one of two ways. They are rapidly supported with independent evidence, by being applied or replicated. Or they draw a lot of attention and money which helps them persist in spite of, or in the absence of, evidence. Charlatans, purveyors of snake oil, and (most often) people who for whatever reason don't want to be seen to be wrong - they exist in every walk of life. Science is the same. The incentives in the system strongly select for these people in the 'leading hypotheses' space.