That's certainly an interesting discussion with Mead. His view of the fallacies in this Kuhnian conspiracy in physics (how normal science resorts to "epicycles" in its methods to handle the anomalies in the evidence) is consistent with some criticisms I've made.
His point that physics (like economics) is filled with mathematicians rather than with conceptualists who try to understand the big picture is consistent with my point about the unpopularity of philosophy in general.
Again, whether he's right about quantum mechanics, I'm not qualified to judge. For example, what does he say about Bell's theorem, which is supposed to prove there's no hidden deterministic variable?