i am always confused when bell comes up and people use it as an argument for 'the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics' as i stated in my comment defendin

i am always confused when bell comes up and people use it as an argument for 'the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics' as i stated in my comment defending your original skepticism: 'i find that science as a verb often is the act of discovering previous understandings were inadequate to describe phenomena' bell's inequality was a direct response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which wanted to assert philosophically the inadequacy of quantum mechanics conversely bell shows empirically the inadequacy of classical mechanics which seems uncontroversial.. how many times historically have we shown contemporary classical mechanics to be wanting? bell, to me, simply says if you wish to find relation between bodies associated with classical mechanics and bodies associated with quantum mechanics you are going to have to do better, and i'd argue.. on both fronts