Here's a follow-up on why Mandacena could be wrong, and his work is not the only one:
"The problem here is that of what is an “interesting region of theory space”. At this point the failures of string theory unification strongly indicate that it’s not such an interesting region. It seems likely that we’d be better off if most theorists focusing on phenomenology of this failed program were to pick something else to work on."
Citations are not a "like"-like function; they are an admission by an author of a work that another work shaped its development.
One must also cite a work if one is writing a paper which disagrees with that work's conclusions, criticizes its methods, or points out a fault in its theoretical content. This has a particular benefit for readers.
Woit himself carefully cites works he strongly objects to in his book[1] that shares its name with the blog you linked to.
- --
[1] Woit P. Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law. Basic Books (AZ); 2006 Sep 4., pp 268-274. (cf. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/NEWerrata.html )
"The problem here is that of what is an “interesting region of theory space”. At this point the failures of string theory unification strongly indicate that it’s not such an interesting region. It seems likely that we’d be better off if most theorists focusing on phenomenology of this failed program were to pick something else to work on."
And as far as I could follow his work and attempts to explain symmetry with economics analogies, I think my concerns are valid. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375