Based on the title alone: "Good."
Because "science" is much broader than physics, and physicists have tended to misdefine science for a long time, even though the broad area of "physics" includes subfields of different types of science. For example, there are theoretical scientists, experimental scientists, and observational/historical scientists. An astronomer is observing events of the past, not blowing up stars in an experiment, for example.
But that's not the topic of the article.
The Guth/Linde/Steinhardt idea of multiple working hypotheses not being science is ridiculous.
T.C. Chamberlin pointed out in his seminal work,
The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (1890) : "With this method the dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented." Science advances every time a reasonable hypothesis is put forth, even if we aren't advancing on knocking one down or supporting another.
And plodding through takes time. It's great that they propose the
Big Bounce, but that doesn't mean there's not something to be found between the previous hypotheses.