First collisions at the LHC with unprecedented Energy! (Ask a particle physisicist)

[JuliaL]

---

Of course as a big disclaimer, I have not been a very important figure in the grand scheme of particle theory, but I would say that I have done some good work and a very decent grasp of the physics and a pretty broad range of expertise. I say that to emphasize that I am not necessarily the gold standard by which to judge expertise in theoretical physics, and to establish that I am not suffering from delusions of grandeur. That being said, I have, just recently, read articles in a respectable journal by professional philosophers concerning my field of study, and have been less than impressed. He was going on and on about how physicists are misled because how can we possibly advance the field if we don't really know what particles really are and so on. To me it read like someone who doesn't understand the maths desperately trying to tell us that we do not know what we are doing or talking about, because we don't rigidly formulate our theories in a language he understands (because it is arguably impossible). What makes me angry about this is, in his desperate attempt to stay relevant despite not fully understanding the theory, the guy besmirches the reputation of the field. This is not the first time I encountered this kind of lameness. I signed up for the philosophy working group of the german physical society and went to the first meeting, and that was the last one I went to.

---

There are fortunate examples to the contrary. I know a former colleague of my phd advisor who changed carreers and does intriguing philosophy of physics, addressing questions such as in which sense successive scientific theories improve, and whether they might converge to something that can be called Truth.

I'm very keen on the idea that Truth is the property of our knowledge that gives the power to make predictions which turn out.
If your model, mathematical or otherwise, gives accurate predictions, it can be said to be True.
AFAIK, the standard model is the best, most accurate, predictor in existence.  In that sense I'd call it the Truest, unlike the wild guesses about reality as written down by desert nomads.
Now, you just have to overcome chaos when you apply it to larger systems.
Have you gotten past 2 bodies?

I'd say that people doing philosophy of science without having in depth training in at least one field they address, or better yet research experience, run a high risk of producing work that I perceive as highly embarassing.

Yes, embarassing to them.  An empathic response, while honorable, is not necessary.