As a counterpoint: what about the efficacy of condensed matter physics informing developments in quantum field theory?
Of course analog systems must be treated carefully, but I think we shouldn't rush to do away with the practice entirely. Naturally, we do want to study black holes directly (with experiments like LIGO, LISA, etc.), but this is very expensive, difficult, and time consuming. If a small lab wants to try out some gravitationally analogous system, why not?
The thing is, this isn't even a challenge to any assumptions physicists have, or even a surprising result. Every prediction of quantum theory for these kinds of atomic systems has been borne out.
All this "weirdness" is the same old story of "Is it a particle or a wave?!," when in reality, we know its neither. Quantum objects are represented by wavefunctions, or vectors in a Hilbert space, to which "particle" and "wave" are intuitive approximations in certain regimes, that makes it easier for humans to talk about in natural, non-mathematical language.
All this experiment has shown is that a object that we expect to be described by quantum mechanics turns out to, indeed, be described by quantum mechanics.
"The standard interpretation of entanglement is that there is some kind of instant communication happening between the two particles."
This is flat-out not true. The standard interpretation is that the entangled objects are part of a single quantum state. Measurement/observation of the state collapses the wave-function, and does not necessarily imply communication between the constituent parts.
metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
astrophysics: the branch of astronomy concerned with the physical nature of stars and other celestial bodies, and the application of the laws and theories of physics to the interpretation of astronomical observations.
Much of the nature of the cosmos is indeed a mystery, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the multitude of things we've learned about our universe from various physical observations and measurements.
Physicist here: the BICEP2 findings have a fair chance of being borne out, but I do feel that the BICEP group was a bit premature claiming definitive detection.
The doubts of independent groups, and the need for further experiments to confirm the results is the scientific method and community working as intended.
Ultimately, its mostly been the sensationalistic media coverage that makes the situation seem more controversial than it really is.
Of course analog systems must be treated carefully, but I think we shouldn't rush to do away with the practice entirely. Naturally, we do want to study black holes directly (with experiments like LIGO, LISA, etc.), but this is very expensive, difficult, and time consuming. If a small lab wants to try out some gravitationally analogous system, why not?