Interesting. I don't think it is at all true to say physics is full of pseudoscience, but there are plenty of people complaining that string theory, in particular, seems to be close to deserving that title. I'm not sure I would apply the pseudoscience label to either that or models of consciousness, though, as we know that in science hypotheses and observation go hand in hand and sometimes it is inevitable that one gets ahead of the other. One has to allow this to some extent or science would never develop. But with superstring theory I think the criticism is that it has been going since the 1960s, has grown into a cottage industry within the subject - and all without ever making a testable prediction. I think what annoys the authors of the pseudoscience letter is the false impression that pop-sci journalists and the media more generally sometimes give about the status of some of these untested hypotheses. This is especially the case when there is a suspicion that some of the scientists involved like to give media interviews promoting their pet hypotheses, when in fact they are far from being accepted or validated. On this very forum we have recently had a person asking about gravitons, for example, under the impression that they are part of the current model of physics.