Camp A: "We have a language some of you don't understand. It includes terms like "QM", "QFT", "Feynman Diagrams," "Quarks", "Bosons", etc.
You don't understand it because you're not as smart as we are...
No, you dont understand it for the same reason you or I dont understand chinese: you or I have not made the faintest attempt to learn it.
Math is difficult. you cant learn quantum mechanics without the math. Even if you know the sufficient amount of math (and i dont mean highschool math) you still need to learn the physics, of which the math is an integral part. You have attempted neither and thus do not understand quantum mechanics.
Its not nice of you to presume scientists think you are not smart because you do not intuitively understand what took them many years of hard training to learn yourself. That is stupid, and i suppose the only way you would write something like that is to portray science as mean to allow you to dismiss science at large later on and make the comparison to religion easier.
nor do you have all of the necessary information. If you were/had, you would understand. We can't break it down for you, though, because there really is no way to do that.
false. the books are all there. lectures is being given. experimental data is avaliable. it has been broken down for you, it just havent been broken down in small snack-sized pieces because reality is not that simple, and you need to apply your ass to a chair in order to digest it.
well, chinese is hard to learn too, and a person who has not made any substantial effort to learn it simply wont understand it. That is not because chinese is a religion, it is because it take an effort.
For instance, we can talk to you about virtual particles, but really, why should we?
because its so interesting. which is why you can find thousands of articles talking about the subject written by scientists who is trying nothing but explaining and understanding the subject. you are just making shit up because you want an easier comparison to religion later on, buuuuh!
We know, intuitively, that they're their because our math says they have to be.
quantum mechanics is build on observations made around the turn of last century. when describing those observations exactly one get an extremely consistent framework called quantum mechanics. it has been the most successfull theory to day, much more successfull in accuracy than newtonian mechanics. you are again just making stuff up because you want to make the comparison to religion seem less interlectual bancrupt, but you are really grasping straws.
No, we've never seen them (no one has or can)...
Nor have we seen a photon but they make photo-detectors click from time to time. we have seen their effect and do so again and again, which i write again and again and you just ignore it because it does not suit your science=religion agenda.
but we who understand how it all works so you're just going to have to take our word for it that it is and means what we say it is and means.
if you cant be arsed to learn chinese because you are to lazy, then yah, you pretty much have to take the word of people who know chinese as to what a given word mean. Again you are making stuff up to make your own comparison easier: The experiments are there. the books are there. the articles are there, heck, there are video lectures on youtube you can watch. You are just to uninterested to take the effort (which go beyond randomly reading stuff on wikipedia, sorry), yet insist on telling the people who are less lazy than you how it "really" is. It does not work with chinese and it does not work with physics.
You could, if you have a mind to, read one the "Dummy" books (i.e., "Quantum Math for Dummies," "Virtual Particles for Dummies," "How Virtual Particles Don't Really Exist But Really Do")... but you probably won't understand those, either.
again you are making up a persieved personal attack from scientists on you to make scientists sound more mean. That is extremely whiny, and it is also false: If you spend, say, a decade on reading physics and math, i would say you would have a pretty good grasp on quantum field theory, and i think any professor with any kind of self-confidence in his abilities to teach would agree. That you are not interested in making the effort (which i understand, it is your personal choise what you spend time on) does not make quantum field theory wrong, suspect, or turn it into a religion any less than chinese, for which something similar holds.
So, again, you really just need to take our word for it."
no, take the experimental evidence as evidence.
As for the religion=science. Well its just wrong, and i think you have just demonstrated how many corners one has to cut with respect to interlectual integrity and reality in order to make it even look like it works. What remains of what you wrote --when we remove all the clearly not made up stuff, the implied arrogance and the parts where you ignore experimental evidence which i have written about 3 times allready-- is that science is hard, and if one cant be arsed to learn it one has to rely on those who have, and that sortof sound like religion, well duh.
Naturally I think its very silly you use such an analogy to accept the idea what would otherwise be bone-fida evidence of a neural disorder is anything but.