Well I could be mistaken, but I think that's his main point.
Instead of focusing on the intricate balance of all the parts
[of which we only know the scantest details about; we've barely
touched neutrinos.. .and our measuring tools are necessarily
limited in scope because we are stuck on the earth with all of
its flaws] or focusing on possibilities that we can never prove,
focus on what we _do_ know and _can_ work with.
The other areas stray us away from things that are pragmatic and
useful. Consider that he works for CERN. They had to convince
several countries to invest I-don't-know-how-much-money into
this project. It has to have pragmatic, practical, tangible
benefit. It's not _just_ pure science. It _must_ lead to things
we can do stuff with.
Consider: How useful is it to follow a multiverse line? It's
great for science fiction, but will it build better machinery?
Or consider the anthropic principle. Finely tuned for life is
great for religious and philosophical debates but it doesn't
solve any future technology either.
In short, like you said, they side-step the hard problems needed
to be financed and faced head on with whatever the best of
technology and theory we can throw at it.
Standard Model doesn't sell books. Multiverse and anthropic
principle sells books.
Standard model isn't sexy. It's not marketable to the masses
like us, but it's marketable to governments with deep pockets.
And... it works.
I think that's why he's sticking to it so firmly and even if
super-symmetry isn't 'the answer'... it's a very practical
answer if it can be made to work easily.
