"This time"?! I'd say the irony of history is repeating itself. Seriously, though, do you have any examples? I don't know the personalities behind the various interpretations. I suspect that if Feynman were still around, that he'd be just as skeptical as ever about everything. My guess is that the hard core skeptics from pre-QM are still so, but the list is shrinking........
Ha ha ha! This time the upheaval went the wrong way, and the formerly skeptical physicists can now be caught talking about unbelievable quackery. Some fate
If you're talking in general terms about physicists, my second guess is that the distribution of skepticism hasn't changed much. What has changed greatly is the quantity. There are a lot more minds working today, so its natural to see more creative interpretations, especially since the problem has remained intractable for so long (accounting for the ratio of years / physicists ).
It may be a requirement of progress that wide-eyed new generations take the vanguard in each cycle. Consider Einstein's stubborn opposition (skepticism++ ) of QM. I've always wondered whether it came with age and success. It's sad that his flights of intuition weren't applied to QM.
Setting aside pseudoscience, the fascinating thing about a time like this, is that there is no way to tell whether the bizarre may bear out.
Ya, as soon as I heard about electron "clouds", it didn't taste right, but it was indistinguishable from other classical physics concepts taught in a watered down fashion. I.e. any two objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That seemed just as magic as anything else because nobody gave me the inertial explanation. Now if I'd asked "where does inertia come from?", I'd be right back to zero. Sadly (or suspiciously), the fundamentals of classical physics that are mysterious was never part of the curriculum.... but the description of the atom never made any sense to me, and I doubt it ever made any sense to anyone.
Heh. There are precious few eternal truths outside of pure math and logic, maybe none, and fewer of those are useful in guiding lives and civilizations. It's much more useful to recognize eternal truth as a subset. We need more guidelines to direct ourselves. If we're smart, we try to base these truths on facts, but when the facts change, the mirror cracks (as soon as the Vatican gives permission, of course ).If it has to be shattered then it is not truth, it was illusion. Truth is eternal.