I'm not saying anything about whether it is true or not. I'm saying there is a completely different class of reasoning between talking about how the two-slit e

I'm not saying anything about whether it is true or not. I'm saying there is a completely different class of reasoning between talking about how the two-slit experiment might not be mysterious, and describing the use of the scientific method to validate it, versus attributing the obscurity of a result to a systemic bias problem in science. I completely accept that science has human bias problems... The community is made of people, after all. I personally subscribe to the idea that it is systemically sexist. So I do not argue that there is a bias, I only state that the transition from one kind of discussion to the other was jarring in this post. I waled away from the article not sure if it was primarily about a theory I hadn't heard of, with a footnote about why I hadn't heard of it, or if it was primarily about a systemic coverup of a theory, with some introductory material about the theory presented to understand why it would be covered up by the establishment. One can say, "Why not both?" But truly, good writing has a focus, and an essay really doesn't have a lot of room to stray too far from a single, primary message. It could be that one good essay is about how the grand mystery isn't that mysterious, and another good essay is about how Science with a capital S is biased towards the mysterious and inscrutable. It wouldn't take much editing for this essay to be transformed into either of those. And perhaps this is a matter of taste, but I would prefer one of those essays to this one. But that being said, whatever else I might think about its focus, I'm glad it introduced me to something intriguing about the two-slit experiment!