Agreed. I think it becomes clearer when you start to look at the human dynamics of group belief systems, and the process of changing those beliefs and consequen

Agreed. I think it becomes clearer when you start to look at the human dynamics of group belief systems, and the process of changing those beliefs and consequent turmoil. The fact is, we don’t have enough evidence yet to decide one way or the other, but there is a commonly accepted interpretation that is quite strongly cemented in the minds of practicing physicists, which works well for their purposes. When challenged by a fringe group, they will naturally defend their beliefs in ways that are both scientific and human-reactionary. Being scientists, they will be open to changing beliefs given enough evidence, but being human, they will instinctively defend their existing beliefs, even if poorly supported, until sufficient evidence arrives. I suppose the perfect Bayesian physicist would hold a superposition of beliefs, and use this set to decide on the most promising allocation of research resources. Of course, having incomplete information, there is always the chance of a hidden dynamic that, to uncover, requires chance investigation of an unlikely theory. :-)