Actually, the wavefunction collapse is a very well defined mathematical construct; so, if you are ignoring or trying to avoid it, you are literally "hiding the scary equations."
It's well-defined mathematically but ill-defined philosophically. There is no agreement on what an "observation" is -- that is what is ill-defined:
> The Copenhagen interpretation is the oldest and probably still the most widely held interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most generally it posits something in the act of observation which results in the collapse of the wave function. According to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation the causative agent in this collapse is consciousness. How this could happen is widely disputed.
It's an open problem, and I'm not sure if there are official tallies, but I think that currently most people think that the explanation is decoherence instead of consciousness. From the same Wikipedia page:
> Erich Joos and Heinz-Dieter Zeh claim that the phenomenon of quantum decoherence, which was put on firm ground in the 1980s, resolves the problem. The idea is that the environment causes the classical appearance of macroscopic objects.
The appeal of Bohm is that it results in QM that is deterministic, without needing to resort to ill-defined notions of collapse.
I'm quite sure "hiding the scary equations" has absolutely zero to do with it, and it honestly comes across as offensive to suggest that it is.