I don't know that much about philosophy of physics done by philosophers, but philosophers of mathematics seem stuck with Hilbert's formalism and Goedel's theorem.

This Week's finds in Mathematical Physics: week198

While in Hong Kong, I received a copy of a very interesting book:

1) David Corfield, Towards a Philosophy of Real Mathematics, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 2003. More information and part of the book's introduction available at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~dc23/Towards.htm

I should admit from the start that I'm completely biased in favor of this book, because it has a whole chapter on one of my favorite subjects: higher-dimensional algebra. Furthermore, Corfield cites me a lot and says I deserve "lavish praise for the breadth and quality of my exposition". How could I fail to recommend a book by so wise an author?

That said, what's really special about this book is that it shows a philosopher struggling to grapple with modern mathematics as it's actually carried out by its practitioners. This is what Corfield means by "real" mathematics. Too many philosophers of mathematics seem stuck in the early 20th century, when explicitly "foundational" questions - questions of how we can be certain of mathematical truths, or what mathematical objects "really are" - occupied some the best mathematicians. These questions are fine and dandy, but by now we've all heard plenty about them and not enough about other equally interesting things. Alas, too many philosophers seem to regard everything since Goedel's theorem as a kind of footnote to mathematics, irrelevant to their loftier concerns (read: too difficult to learn).

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo