Wrong. For example, Einstein used the EPR 'paradox' as an argument against quantum mechanics. he pointed out that the predictions of QM were very unusual in a particular siutation and Einstein thought that the prediction simply would not happen in the real world. he was wrong. The experiment has actually been done and the results agree with QM and not with Einstein.<quoted text>
This is a prime example of one of your half baked assumptions grounded in unverifiable opinion.
More generally, Einstein was looking for a causal, local theory that would subsume QM. While this was a reasonable goal at the time, it turns out to be impossible. This is the content of Bell's inequalities: any causal, local theory has to obey certain inequalities in the correlations between distant events. QM violates those inequalities. For Einstein, this would have been an argument against QM. Well, once again the experiments have actually been done and the real world agrees with QM and not with Einstein. The real world simply does not obey any causal, local theory.
Now, QM is a non-causal, local theory and it predicts results in the real world incredibly well. There is a theory by Bohm that is a non-local, causal theory that agrees with basic QM in all predictions. Bohm's theory, however, is harder to use, makes the same predictions as QM, and cannot be extended to include electron spins, which are observed.
That means that some non-causal, local theory is the only game in town and that QM is the main contender. it also means that Einstein was wrong about these things.