He thinks “Inflation tells us that it’s likely real, but can it be the answer to any of our scientific questions? Probably not”:
A statement or admission of our own ignorance, that we do not understand the dynamics that gave rise to the constants of our Universe, does not mean that there are none, that all values are taken on somewhere in some Universe, and that ours just happens to have the values it does, which are serendipitous to our existence.
That line of thinking not only isn’t even science, it’s a cop-out, and a distraction from those who are actually seeking scientific answers to the hardest of scientific problems out there.
Goodness, he sounds somewhat like us. Also,
The multiverse may be real, but it doesn’t hold the answer to the question of why the fundamental constants have the values they do. It can constrain what they must be, but that’s all the anthropic principle can do. To get the rest of the way there?—?to understand why our Universe has the properties it does?—?requires that we look for dynamics. They may not exist in an accessible way in our Universe, but we have to try, we have to look, and we have to ask.
The cost of giving up, of not looking for an answer that the Universe might actually reveal if we did, is far too high.
Well, Siegel knows who he needs to convince, we suppose. Not us.
See also: 
The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).
Follow UD News at Twitter!