The author seems to be saying that the main reason physicists should pay attention to philosophers is that philosophy can be useful in the study of physics.
I think he could have made his point better by noting that pretty much any thinking about why we study physics leads directly to philosophy. What is the point of doing science? What is knowledge, and why should we be interested in it? These are just the sort of questions philosophy as a discipline is intended to answer.
Any physicist who is interested in any 'meta' questions about his/her work is necessarily interested in philosophy. One can disagree with the particular methodologies of modern academic philosophy, but it is hard to see how any intellectually curious person can dismiss the field entirely.
It seems to me that this is a stronger argument for the relevance of philosophy to science.
As I read Dr. Carroll's blog post, I was reminded encouragingly of how a famous philosopher and Parisian professor[1] – the student of a great medieval experimentalist[2] – in 1265 began his opus magnum with a critique aimed at those who argued that philosophy was the pinnacle of human intellectual pursuit, encompassing all else. See Article One, Question One of the First Part[3] in the Summa Theologica[4]:
I think he could have made his point better by noting that pretty much any thinking about why we study physics leads directly to philosophy. What is the point of doing science? What is knowledge, and why should we be interested in it? These are just the sort of questions philosophy as a discipline is intended to answer.
Any physicist who is interested in any 'meta' questions about his/her work is necessarily interested in philosophy. One can disagree with the particular methodologies of modern academic philosophy, but it is hard to see how any intellectually curious person can dismiss the field entirely.
It seems to me that this is a stronger argument for the relevance of philosophy to science.