I recently had the displeasure of interacting with a community off this website. I had attempted to submit a glossary of jargony words that often appear in articles that touch on the topics of 1.) Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics or 2.) Quantum foundations.
Well apparently that community has been over-run with people who are trained in a very orthodox form of shut-up-and-calculate. At every instance, their complaints would be packaged as "The problems only come in when you try to fit your classical notions into a quantum mechanical situation where they do not fit." But never did any of them ever produce an alternative notion. Instead, they demanded at every turn that every single word, phrase, and "notion" be stated in mathematical equations.
So in an article in Scientific American , the word "superposition" would invariably be used to mean "a situation in which a particle is occupying many states at once". But this was disallowed in their presence. Instead, "superposition" should always and ever be some mathematical procedure or proof. In their little internet cult, "superposition" should only ever mean : "A complex linear combination of states" -- a purely mathematical statement.
As the comment thread drug on, it became increasingly clear that many of the people involved did not believe that any conversation should be happening at all. That there should be no dialog about interpretations of quantum mechanics and the issue of : "what does this tell us about reality?"
There is nothing to say, because there is nothing but equations. So the complaint
"trying to fit classical notions into a QM context"
is not the real complaint. That was a cover-statement for
"attempting to discuss modern physics in any other language other than raw equations and proof procedures."
I understand and fully appreciate the existence of the formal discipline of mathematical physics. There are people who spend years studying its formal procedures in order to ace midterms in courses offered at Princeton. One social rule, (already established by such midterm-taking folk) is that you are not allowed to utilize or hijack any of their rigidly-defined mathematics words for nefarious uses. They recoil from this, for had they mis-defined or mis-understood a single aspect of "superposition" they would have received a C- on their midterm examination. Appropriately, seeing someone misdefine a formal word on the internet must make their hair stand on end.
On top of , and in addition to the above, the presentation of extra-academic phrases are rejected wholesale. So you could for instance, present to them the phrase counterfactual definiteness or perhaps the so-called No conspiracy condition. This will be met by long paragraphs of rejections, describing a personal interpretation of physics which "does not require" any of these notions. Attached to that response is a diatribe about "trying to fit classical notions into a quantum situation" ( or some variation thereof ).
So there will be no discussion or reality. No discussion about what physics says about reality. No discussion of the foundational commitments of a theory. No ontology. No nothing. There are equations, and we manipulate those equations to discover their 'consequences'. End of story. Lights out. Go home.