For myself, whenever I read about someone's new model and their predictions, I'm always looking to see what their model was verified against. If they've got a model, and it is verified to touch reality in some place we can check it, then I'm willing to at least listen to what the model says about where we can't touch, see, or test. It could be wrong, but it's at least the start of a conversation.

But if it's been verified against nothing, I don't have much interest in it.

Some examples of that include almost every model that claims to describe some element of human social interaction, which never seem to be checked against anything real that I can see, and I recall once reading an article and paper on modeling exoplanets and their likelihood of having life on them (or the likelihood of it being hospitable, not sure which) that flew so far beyond our science and data that the peer reviewers should be ashamed they ever approved it.

(Of course, if you want to publish your unvalidated model as an interesting piece of math, go nuts.)