Pop socio-biology gets no attention from working biologists. Multiverses don't impress working physicists. Not because they're impossible, but because they're boring and sterile.
Those are positions I arrived at myself, by applying the same standard and using intellectual integrity.
My professional grad school educational background is mathematics. So I guess calling a spade a spade is easier for me in some cases. But I think that I have sufficiently pointed out and illustrated my position.
I mentioned multiverse theory to illustrate the same problem in another area.
Great, do maths. Every single thing in maths amounts to "suppose X, then what?" Assuming x, then y or w? Assuming x and deriving y, then z or v?
Anybody is free to say "Let's suppose a, then what?" But nobody is obliged to pitch in. If you do the work and find a=>b=>c, other mathematicians might be impressed at its beauty, or be bored or disgusted and ignore it. So all of mathematics is made of stuff that mathematicians collectively thought was beautiful at the time.
Probably many explored negative or complex numbers, or group algebra, years or centuries before other mathematicians were ready for those.
So mathematics is naturally driven by what is fashionable. Science is supposed to be driven by evidence. But scientists are people first and scientists second, so fashion is strong in science too.
You can see it in particle physics, where a huge fraction of them are chasing string-theory rainbows that will never be tested against experimental data, and astronomy where everything they can see is plasma, but it officially mustn't be doing anything because plasma-dynamics maths are intractable. (That said, solar physicists are doing amazing work in it.)
There's plenty wrong in science, you have just completely missed what it is.
Pop socio-biology gets no attention from working biologists. Multiverses don't impress working physicists. Not because they're impossible, but because they're boring and sterile.
I haven't read Dennett. Not interesting.