I think being epistemically rational entails learning the mathematical part of QM first and reading through the QM sequence afterwards. Before you can seriously attack the problem of interpretation of QM, you needn’t necessarily know the experiments and hard data and evidence for QM, but you must know the mathematical structure of the theory, because that’s the thing what you are going to interpret!
See, I might think that, but many LWers (including SI staff) responded to that considering it ridiculous that one should have to understand the equations to have a meaningful opinion on the topic. So we’re at odds with consensus here.
I understood that, nevertheless I used his snarky remark as a context in which to disclaim one possible misinterpretation of my original comment.
;) I suspected that, nevertheless I used your clarification as a context in which to frame the interjection in question as somewhat more in the direction of petty than incisive—my impression being that the snarkiness did not accurately represent the positions of people who have disagreed with David in the past.
See, I might think that, but many LWers (including SI staff) responded to that considering it ridiculous that one should have to understand the equations to have a meaningful opinion on the topic. So we’re at odds with consensus here.
I don’t claim representing consensus in the parent comment.
David wasn’t trying to imply otherwise. He was making use of your comment as a context in which to snark about past disagreements he has had.
I understood that, nevertheless I used his snarky remark as a context in which to disclaim one possible misinterpretation of my original comment.
;) I suspected that, nevertheless I used your clarification as a context in which to frame the interjection in question as somewhat more in the direction of petty than incisive—my impression being that the snarkiness did not accurately represent the positions of people who have disagreed with David in the past.