Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci claims to be an expert on pseudoscience, and is writing a book bragging about how much progress philosophers have made. Much of it has appeared in a series of blog posts.
One example of progress is that he says that philosophers have discovered that causality plays no role in fundamental physics:
Moreover, some critics (e.g., Chakravartty 2003) argue that ontic structural realism cannot account for causality, which notoriously plays little or no role in fundamental physics, and yet is crucial in every other science. For supporters like Ladyman causality is a concept pragmatically deployed by the “special” sciences (i.e., everything but fundamental physics), yet not ontologically fundamental.I do not know how he could be so clueless. Causality plays a crucial role in every physics book I have.
A Quanta mag article explains:
New Support for Alternative Quantum ViewThis is foolish.
An experiment claims to have invalidated a decades-old criticism against pilot-wave theory, an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics that avoids the most baffling features of the subatomic universe.
Of the many counterintuitive features of quantum mechanics, perhaps the most challenging to our notions of common sense is that particles do not have locations until they are observed. This is exactly what the standard view of quantum mechanics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, asks us to believe. Instead of the clear-cut positions and movements of Newtonian physics, we have a cloud of probabilities described by a mathematical structure known as a wave function. The wave function, meanwhile, evolves over time, its evolution governed by precise rules codified in something called the Schrödinger equation. The mathematics are clear enough; the actual whereabouts of particles, less so. ...
For some theorists, the Bohmian interpretation holds an irresistible appeal. “All you have to do to make sense of quantum mechanics is to say to yourself: When we talk about particles, we really mean particles. Then all the problems go away,” said Goldstein. “Things have positions. They are somewhere. If you take that idea seriously, you’re led almost immediately to Bohm. It’s a far simpler version of quantum mechanics than what you find in the textbooks.” Howard Wiseman, a physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, said that the Bohmian view “gives you a pretty straightforward account of how the world is…. You don’t have to tie yourself into any sort of philosophical knots to say how things really are.”
The double-slit experiment shows that electrons and photons are not particles. Not classical particles, anyway.
Bohm lets you pretend that they are really particles, but you have to believe that they are attached to ghostly pilot waves that interact nonlocally with the particles and the rest of the universe.
Bohm also lets you believe in determinism, altho it is a very odd sort of determinism because there is no local causality.
Just what is appealing about that?
Yes, you can say that the electrons have positions, but those position are inextricably tied up with unobservable pilot waves, so what is satisfying about that?
Contrary to what the philosophers say, local causality is essential to physics and to our understanding of the world. If some experiment proves it wrong, then I would have to revise my opinion. But that has never been done, and there is no hope of doing it.
Belief in action-at-a-distance is just a mystical pipe dream.
So Bohm is much more contrary to intuition that ordinary Copenhagen quantum mechanics. And Bohm is only known to work in simple cases, as far as I know, and no one has ever used it to do anything new.