This is not a description of the scientific process, but a description of tribalism, polarization and confirmation bias. People who prefer their team to end up right (or even worse, their goal is for the other team to end up wrong regardless of merit) by bending reality to fit their view, rather than bend themselves to perceive reality as it is, end up wrong.
Things tend to fall into patterns in physics, chemistry, ecosystems, societies, information technology. If they didn't, math would be useless, as it's the abstract description of such patterns and the quantitative relationships of measurable variables within them.
And these patterns will be constantly rediscovered, often by different people, under different names, with different levels of sophistication, and many of those people won't have the best of intentions or wisdom how to use what they found, or guessed about. We can't simply reject every concept, simpy because someone we don't like happens to subscribe to it. This is an outright childish way of looking at the world.
The science done in the article is fine science. Drawing parallels between the models is good and not woo
The question that started this thread is:
>Aren't quantum effects supposed to disappear in the macroscopic world
Which is just a straightforward misreading of the article.
Nobody is trying to "supress an actual scientific discovery" they are trying to clarify what has actually been discovered.
I'm with you here. Lot of ground for certain people to pick the sentence and use it out of context to augment their systematic bullshit.