Of course it does. Granted that happens seldom with most uninformed propositions.

However, in mainstream science there are many long-standing disputes by "knowledgeable fellows" also.

Questions:

a) Where would you place David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate order" (Bohmian Mechanics)? The man knew what he was talking about and had the credentials to prove it.

b) Where would you place Renate Loll's "CDT" (causal dynamical triangulation)? Developed by brilliant and knowledgeable minds.

c) Where would you place Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe"? He has credentials aplenty.

These hypotheses go beyond mainstream science, but attempt to go deeper, without directly contradicting mainstream science and IMO, squarely places then in the "Science" forum, even though they have not been formally tested and falsified. But that is not due to knowledge or logic. We just don't have the tools to test them (yet).

But do they belong in the somewhat derogatory category of "fringe" theories?

In fact they are "cutting edge" hypotheses, based on knowledge of physics and mathematics.