I don't think you are wrong at all in fact I think you are very much correct in the sense that the answer can't be formulated in language other than one closer to what it is and there mathematics is closer than english.

Problem is that mathematics isn't enough to make it useful (i.e. predictable) you need a combination of math and experiments to turn it into something that can be used.

Hum, the "shut-up and calculate" idea is that the theory works, people've tested it. Now you either use it, or go find empirical flaws, so people can improve the theory. But thinking about the reasons your math looks like that has no use, unless you get something with observable consequences, don't waste the time.

There's nothing in it about math being a perfect language, or experiments not being necessary.

Yes thats we have scientist and mathematicians for. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and also see if we can put it in different perspectives that help us understand the field.

If you want to shut-up and calculate by all means. That doesn't mean I or others have to. After all we are humans.

No, I don't want you to follow it. In fact, my personal ideas are a bit different too.

But it is the most usual approach (or, at least, almost everybody works under it almost all the time - but people may identify with somehting else), and the article didn't make a good claim for why we shouldn't just shut-up and calculate.

Thats a completely fair point, however I wasn't basing it on this alone :)