the thread: Which arguments are acceptable and which are not? > Likes and Comments

As mature persons what argument do you consider to be acceptable and what arguments are not? For instance the metaphysical philosopher Berkeley contended that when there was no-one present in a room to observe its contents, the room and all it contained disappeared and only re-appeared when an observer entered the room. In other words, according to Berkeley, objects only exist when they are perceived. Of course Berkeley's argument was soon over thrown. Unfortunately, the same does not hold good for the arguments that sustain modern day physics. The argument that: "at the level of the very, very small, things behave differently than they do at the everyday macro level." Is the argument on which much of modern science is based. On this argument are built a whole array of esoteric ideas that underpin most of modern science. Take the case of super-position, where one object can be in two places at once, or take the case of disambiguation, where something can exist independently at one moment and then be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Or take the case of the wave function collapse; light as it travel from Point A to point B is supposed to exist as a wave-function. That is to say, from the moment light is emitted at point A, it ceases to exist as something ‘real’ and exists as an abstract wave-function. However, according to quantum mechanics as elucidated in the hard interpretation of quantum mechanics at the fifth Solvay conference held in 1927, the wave function was not something abstract, it was real. Further, according to this interpretation of quantum mechanics, every time the light was detected at point B, the wave function collapsed and the light became ‘real’ again. Consequent with the wave function collapse, multiple Universes are born.
The question that this discussion is based on is “Are such arguments acceptable or not? OR should we be looking for alternative models, more in keeping with reality as we know it?