Re:Classic case of idiotus not understandus (Score 1)

"Theories come and go, and without reproducible, experimental evidence, we have at best a model that fits the data - NOT, as far too many people seem to believe, a necessarily accurate description of objective reality." 1. Even with experimental, reproducible data we still have at best a model which fits the data -- this model may later be found to be a subset of a more complete model or the data we are using may be too narrow. 2. "Objective reality." I don't even know how to approach the second part of your statement. How (and really, I'd be interested in a functional description) does anyone move from scientific theory and experiment to an objective reality? Do we furiously inscribe Newtonian Mechanics or Hilbert Spaces on human children so they get a better grasp on reality? Most of Modern Physics works in a framework that is so utterly counter-intuitive, so opposed to conventional human notions of reality, that it takes a lifetime of intense study by thoughtful people to begin to feebly tug at the frayed edges of a marginal sense of what's going on. And mostly, scholars give up on that task anyway and just "shut up and do calculations".