The classical lens through which we view and conduct science has been met with much success. While it is the case that scientists have had much success in reconcile the maths with Quantum Mechanics, we are currently witnessing a “spectacular” failure in reaching an agreement about what the meaning of this success is (Fuchs et al., 2013b, p. 9). While I agree that given the various interpretations in resolving the curiosities emerging from the quantum phenomena can be viewed as a failure, we can only make this final verdict if we were to accept that we arrived at some moment of reckoning. An ongoing mission is not a failure because it is incomplete — its failure or success can really only be decided upon completion. But if we at random select a time point prior to completion, (that is, it is still in progress), by definition it will likely be viewed as failure. We cannot claim a time of reckoning or invoke one randomly. The mission will end when it ends. In fact, we could also argue that some (or perhaps all) scientific programs are forever ongoing, but we can leave this question aside for another discussion. In any case, it would not be unreasonable to expect that it could take another century for physicists to resolve the puzzles of QM.
[DF1]This is an excellent point. How does QBism compare to other interpretations of QM in this respect?
[DF2]This could potentially help decide some of the interpretive issues, but not all. Many interpretations of QM are empirically equivalent.
Metagnostic 