My line of questioning isn't even there. I mean, the standards of "proof" (empirical validation) of physicists are pretty good. But ask any particle physicist

My line of questioning isn't even there. I mean, the standards of "proof" (empirical validation) of physicists are pretty good. But ask any particle physicist and they'll tell you the Standard Model is a hack. It's almost as if it belonged to the same family as epicycles. Moreover -- ask any particle physicist and they'll tell you the empirical work related to LHC is mostly unrelated to the last 40 years of "post-modern" theorizing in physics. In other words: I don't think philosophy should be as concerned with the truth of things (which, well, can't be determined by abstract speculation), but with relevance and significance. Science (as opposed to technology -- and saying technology is powered by science is like saying it's powered by testosterone) is failing pretty hard in remaining relevant. Thus the attacks on religion, linguistics, french philosophy and so on.