If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is alre

If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. That’s a strong and sweeping claim about a varied field, much of which is only concerned with experiments. Do you have anything like support for your claim? Remember that most of physics isn’t the highly popularized version of theoretical physics you may be familiar with. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. No... shit? That’s why physics is dependent on observation and experiments, and why there is a division between physics and mathematics. We’re talking over the internet because of the concrete, useful things brought to us by physics. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way. How is philosophy in any way a cure for this imagined loss of rigor? The problem with physics according to you is a divorce from reality, and your solution is something even more abstract, less amenable to rigor, and famously fluid? Huh?!