1p: The mathematics that allow physicists to reconstruct the structure of matter is fascinating.
2p: The standard model, though ugly, is still undefeated (with examples).
3p: The LHC hasn't led to the discovery of new particles, and physicists are in denial (with examples and a link).
4p: There is a worrying trend about the failure to learn from failure.
5p: The trust in naturalness/beauty/simplicity to guide the search for a unified model is not working.
6p: Turns out "naturalness" is philosophical, not scientific.
7p: Physicists are opportunistic, so they'll try to justify a larger collider to try to discover new particles.
8p: The nightmare scenario: no new particles discovered with the LHC, so physicists have no guidance to continue.
9p: We've been doing it wrong with the use of naturalness as guidance. You can't trust the judgement of scientists when their future funding depends on continuing working in this direction.
So paragraphs 1 through 7 do offer a good background to support his thesis that "naturalness as guidance" is wrongheaded, which is the real point of the article. If you only read the last paragraphs his thesis sounds shaky and arbitrary.
1p: The mathematics that allow physicists to reconstruct the structure of matter is fascinating.
2p: The standard model, though ugly, is still undefeated (with examples).
3p: The LHC hasn't led to the discovery of new particles, and physicists are in denial (with examples and a link).
4p: There is a worrying trend about the failure to learn from failure.
5p: The trust in naturalness/beauty/simplicity to guide the search for a unified model is not working.
6p: Turns out "naturalness" is philosophical, not scientific.
7p: Physicists are opportunistic, so they'll try to justify a larger collider to try to discover new particles.
8p: The nightmare scenario: no new particles discovered with the LHC, so physicists have no guidance to continue.
9p: We've been doing it wrong with the use of naturalness as guidance. You can't trust the judgement of scientists when their future funding depends on continuing working in this direction.
So paragraphs 1 through 7 do offer a good background to support his thesis that "naturalness as guidance" is wrongheaded, which is the real point of the article. If you only read the last paragraphs his thesis sounds shaky and arbitrary.