i am always confused when bell comes up and people use it as an argument for &#x27;the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics&#x27;<p>as i stated in my comment defending your original skepticism: &#x27;i find that science as a verb often is the act of discovering previous understandings were inadequate to describe phenomena&#x27;<p>bell&#x27;s inequality was a direct response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which wanted to assert philosophically the inadequacy of quantum mechanics<p>conversely bell shows empirically the inadequacy of classical mechanics<p>which seems uncontroversial.. how many times historically have we shown contemporary classical mechanics to be wanting?<p>bell, to me, simply says if you wish to find relation between bodies associated with classical mechanics and bodies associated with quantum mechanics you are going to have to do better, and i&#x27;d argue.. on both fronts