I am not saying they should ignore reality. However, I do think that in a lot of instances, it's difficult to say what reality is. Experimenters often read too much into their results. They are too anxious to obtain results that confirm their own theories.
The "action at a distance hypothesis" is one that comes to mind. The weight of opinion is that spin information is transmitted instantaneously from one particle to another over a sizable distance. A lot of the physicists will tell you that it's beyond doubt at this point, yet it seems to defy the Theory of Relativity.
On the other hand, the proof is merely statistical, and even then based upon theoretical assumptions that have not themselves been proven. In fact, we really don't even know what "spin" is. And as Einstein pointed out, it seems absurd. The experimenter's retort: Yes it's absurd, but nevertheless true.
I think I would be a little more hesitant to conclude that it's true, if I agreed that it is absurd, particularly when all I've got is statistical evidence to support it. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists finally concluded that cyclamates don't cause cancer, despite the 1970's claim that they were undeniably a significant cause of cancer.
I see what you are saying now - excellent point - even Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance."
I just can believe in this yet....
Good post, sorry I misunderstood.
You might reasonably infer it could defy classical relativity theories in a three dimensional space. But that is actually an illusion due to our inability to directly perceive higher dimensions, just as flatlanders can't perceive the third dimension. Three-dimensional space at the quantum level doesn't seem to be what we're dealing with in this universe. If electromagnetic phenomena are viewed as ripples in higher-dimensional space, and photons by implication, then the two paired photons are part of the same thing and "right next to each other" in the higher dimension. The bizarre quantum phenomena actually do start to be consistent with common sense when you consider that they occur in a greater number of dimensions.
I guess I'm not really convinced by your arguments that 1) The evidence is only statistical (that is the nature of the quantum universe); 2) We don't know what "spin" is (It is a property of objects at the quantum level -- there will never be an explanation that it is "like ice cream" or something in our macro world); or 3) That some cyclamate studies were wrong (no comment).