It is not hypocracy. You are failing to understand the difference between scientific belief and religious belief (aka "faith") and are treating them as if they are the same. They are not.
Saying something is mathematically consistent with (some) observed results is different from saying it has been proven, and is different from saying that the scientist "believes" it. In fact, in science (as opposed to mathematics), nothing is proven: different theories are supported by different amounts of evidence, and that's all. Some theories (e.g. gravitation, plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, conservation of momentum, evolution) are supported by a LOT of evidence, and thus hard to overturn, while for others (e.g. the theory described in this article), the evidence is interesting but scant at the moment, and research will be required to determine if more can be found, or if contradicting evidence is instead found, or if another theory explains the existing evidence better. Real working scientists know this, and generally report their findings in very careful language expressing the degree of certainty or uncertainty that they have. For a scientist to "believe" something on a personal level, there must generally be a lot of evidence in favor of it, and little apparently contradicting evidence, since ultimately it is the evidence which is important, not the belief. And such scientific beliefs can be overturned if more evidence arrives that contradicts them.
Reporters in the popular press who are reporting on scientific results, however, are typically not inclined to be so careful, since their understanding is typically limited, and also because wild claims and bold headlines sell newspapers and magazines, and ultimately provide paychecks for reporters. As such, it is a mistake to infer from the fact that a popular press reporter breathlessly declares "Scientists believe X" that those scientists do indeed hold a belief in X with the same kind of religious conviction that, for instance, a Christian is typically encouraged to believe that the events described in the Bible are true and accurate.
It is likewise a mistake to assume that because a scientist is advancing a theory or working on gathering evidence for a theory that the scientist "believes" it. Usually, the situation is more that the scientist believes that there is enough evidence in support of the theory that it is interesting to pursue, to see if the theory can be made to explain more observed facts that other, competing theories. That theory may (and probably will) eventually later be supplanted by yet other, newer theories that explain even more evidence, and scientists understand this and expect it (this is, after all, fundamental to the scientific method). That's not remotely the same as belief in the religious sense, in which a person declares permanent, immutable belief in a particular set of explanations for the universe and things in it, and is unwilling to change that belief, even in the face of new evidence (and instead ignores or avoids contradicting evidence in favor of the existing belief). Unwavering belief of that sort would make you very good at religion, but very bad at science.