[tejohnso]

> It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public

Is this mostly settled then? And if so why do we continue to teach a bewildering model?

[Starman_Jones]

It's well settled, but not very useful. We still teach Newton's laws of motion, even though we know they're wrong, because it's a lot easier to work with than Lorentz transformations, and most of the time, the result is just as useful (eg, the Apollo missions used Newton's equations). When introducing chemistry, it's much easier to understand a water molecule as a combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom than it is to understand it as fields representing the two elements interacting with fields representing fundamental forces. Heck, in order to even explain the forces, you would probably need to introduce particles.

[munchler]

Because it is way more intuitive to think about particles, at least at first. For example, particles have mass and momentum. Fields do not.