I’m not an expert in physics, but this seems like a misguided critique to me. My understanding is that physicists aren’t looking for “new” physics because they’re trying to upend established physics, but because they’re trying to reconcile “inconsistencies” in the standard model. Like reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. We need new physics because we know there are gaps in our current understanding of the universe. I haven’t heard about many attempts to disprove established physics. Theoretical physicists aren’t looking just trying to fill the gaps in the model.

>By Carlo Rovelli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli

I believe physicists would benefit from studying at least some of the underlying philosophy. I managed to make it through a four year degree in physics without ever being taught anything about the ideas of Popper or Kuhn other than vague mentions in random lectures. It was only later when I looked into them out of my own interest that I realised they had something relevant to say - and I reckon many physicists never get to that point at all.

Don’t forget P Feyerabend, Against Method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

Did this guy just propose a new theory of epistemological trajectories in theoretical physics, beyond the current paradigm of theoretical physicists liking shiny mathematical objects?

Doesn't the mass of neutrinos make this argument fall apart?

It looks like they are just ignoring new discoveries.