I am rather interested in what Sean Carroll meant exactly when he says that things are getting nailed. I've a feeling he's referring to some very specific, recent developments.

Speaking as a neophyte --- the jazz analogy is truly apt. I would suppose while string theory is rock, some of the other stuff are movie soundtracks, and don't expect orchestras to render your favorite lyrics any time in this century.

I think it's funny that the author talks about the shortcomings of categories, then compares physics to biology. The modern conception of biology rests directly on physics; evolution for example involves physical processes that affect the chemical reactions within mating animals--chemical reactions that rely directly on quantum mechanics.

Biology is still treated as a distinct science only as a form of abstraction-- because it would be practically impossible to study the mating habits of elk by studying the characteristics of the fermions and bosons that make up two elk. There are just too many starting conditions to measure and reactions to calculate. But certainly most biologists would consider themselves part of the same system of knowledge as physicists.

Likewise the concept of a separation between mind and body is dying, if it is not already dead. Today we might say that the mind is a behavior of the body, or rather that a particular set of actions by the body are collectively called "mind" by humans. The implications of this made headlines most recently in NIH's rejection of the DSM V.

Ultimately all of what we call "thoughts" or "stories" are just patterns of information that emerge from the fundamental physical processes of the universe. When we consider the universe, the universe is actually considering itself. The power of science is that it closes the loop--the universe (in part) accurately predicts the future of the universe (in part). There are no pangolins. It's all one thing.