Okay, cool! Though (and again I'm sorry for continuing to blab about this, but I don't often get the opportunity) I think it's actually a bit more tricky. When

Okay, cool! Though (and again I'm sorry for continuing to blab about this, but I don't often get the opportunity) I think it's actually a bit more tricky. When it was published, EPR showed that action by contact (the separation principle) and the _completeness_ of QM can't both be valid. At least, this was Einstein's intention with EPR - in letters to Schrodinger he expresses his chagrin with the way Podolsky, who wrote the paper, buried Einstein's main point in technicalities. Now, when you say he derived conclusions he didn't believe were true, that's kind of wrong, since all he derived was a dilemma (completeness or separation, not both (but possibly neither)). He took this to show that if we maintain the separation principle, then QM needs to be viewed as a statistical account of objects with properties it can't describe (but he never took that to mean hidden variable theories like Bohm's were the answer). So, my point is, he believed in the correctness of QM (just not in the completeness). He believed in QM being true - just not that is was the whole truth. He believed in the correctness of the EPR derivation and in the correctness of the dilemma at the end. When you say he used a theory he didn't believe was correct, I think that's wrong - he just didn't believe it was the finished article. And when you say he derived conclusions he didn't believe were true, I think that's wrong too, since he derived a dilemma that he very much believed in. In the end he chose the wrong side, but that's not relevant here. You say Einstein believed this was a reductio ad absurdum - but that's flat out wrong I think. EPR relates to the completeness of the formalism (if the separation principle is taken to be true), not the correctness.