And what about all the physicists who disagree with a probabalistic theory of subatomic particle interactions? What if QM is not capable of progressing because

And what about all the physicists who disagree with a probabalistic theory of subatomic particle interactions? What if QM is not capable of progressing because it's not correct, only convenient? You can't ding Einstein for failing to progress QM and at the same time also reject any need to provide anything more than empirical results. That's infinitely hypocritical--but I don't really blame you since all you know is how to calculate. This is the crux of the problem. In your eyes (and those of anyone who rejects philosophy) a scientist literally just collects data and issues a yes or no analysis of whether it fits a model. But they have no agency to progress their field beyond confirming the theories that have already been established. What if every time we fired a single photon through a pair of slits an undetectable leprechaun appeared and deflected the photon giving rise to the beloved interference pattern we observe? You'll say that's preposterous and, since the leprechaun is undetectable, resort to Occam's Razor to explain why my theory is not to be taken seriously. But you just did philosophy. Go read Thomas Kuhn. Science does not replace philosophy. They work together in a cyclic tension to progress our understanding of the universe we inhabit. Philosophy asks the questions that science attempts to answer. Science usually does a pretty good job but always gets stuck until someone turns around and says, "wait, we were thinking about this part wrong", and asks a new set of questions.