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

[Pyrrho]

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. One guy who is a chair of philosophy of physics, 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. This guy is good enough to be able to talk about such topics without inducing fatal eyeroll in experts of the field. Not everyone is. You have to have training in some variety of quantum physics, or be really good, not to make a complete ass of yourself when attempting this kind of discussion.

I'd say that people doing philosophy of science professionally 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 working scientists perceive as highly embarassing, and there are plenty examples.

Generally,

I was pretty sure you would be more gentle in expressing this than I was, and you have not disappointed.  It pleases me that we are in agreement on this (though you may not like the association).  The fact that even I, who am no scientist, can recognize that they are generally idiots, who do not understand science, is really damning criticism of them.

I do have a question:  What would finish the sentence you started at the end of your post, which is quoted in full above?