This is what a critique of Woit should look like

http://zippy.ph.utexas.edu/~abergman/Review.pdf

I will focus on one passage for a minute...

There is a seemingly robust description of zillions and zillions of vacua, each of which seems to describe consistent physics completely unlike our world. Faced with this proliferation, one immediately begins to worry about the predictivity of the theory. With so many vacua it might be possible to explain any experimental result one can imagine. If this were true, it would not mean that string theory was wrong, but it would mean that it would be completely useless as it could never make a prediction. To avoid this unhappy state of affairs, a fair number of senior people have decided to take a radically new approach to predictivity. The idea is that one should determine all the possible vacua that are consistent with the existence of intelligent life and imagine that it is equally likely that we could be in any of them. Then, while we could not precisely predict anything about our world, we could assign probabilities to the results of future experiments.

Philosophically, the bolded phrase is indicative of the major problem that critics have with supersymmetry and string theory.

• Supersymmetry solves the Higgs problem by introducing a supersymmetric partner to each known particle - never mind that nobody has ever observed a supersymmetric particle
• Superstring theory requires more than four dimensions - no problem, compactify the superfluous ones
• M Theory has no predictability - no problem, redefine predictability

I can see where this last one is the straw that broke the camel's back for some scientists. Nevertheless, Bergman makes a good even-handed case for the merits of superstring theory while making a detached and solid review of Woit's book in the process. A must read.