Science & Tech Quote by John Polkinghorne

Polkinghorne is doing a quiet bit of boundary-policing. By opening with “Nevertheless,” he signals an argument already in progress: someone has been flirting with the idea that quantum theory is merely a calculating device, a set of rules for predicting lab outcomes without committing to what’s actually out there. His move is to reclaim a simple, almost stubborn realism from a domain famous for interpretive fog.

The key phrase is “who work in quantum physics.” This isn’t just a claim about nature; it’s a claim about tribe and credibility. He’s invoking the lived practice of the field - the way experimentalists and theorists talk, build instruments, and bet careers - as evidence that the entities in the equations aren’t optional metaphors. In other words: you can debate interpretations in seminars, but you don’t design a detector as if electrons are a linguistic convenience.

Notice how he pairs “quantum world” with “quantum entities.” He’s smoothing over the two main targets of anti-realism at once: not just whether the world is quantum-structured, but whether the famous cast (protons, electrons) are real inhabitants rather than bookkeeping devices. That list is strategic: protons and electrons are the workaday furniture of physics, not exotic many-worlds branchings or wavefunction mysticism. He’s anchoring the argument in the most operationally indispensable objects.

Context matters: Polkinghorne wrote and spoke as a physicist deeply interested in philosophy and theology, often pushing back against the cultural story that quantum mechanics licenses radical skepticism about reality. The subtext is a plea for intellectual adulthood: quantum theory is weird, yes, but weirdness isn’t a permission slip to stop believing in the world.