RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 26, 2021 at 5:52 pm
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2021 at 5:53 pm by vulcanlogician.)
I agree with Anom here. The reasoning used was (roughly):
1. Light is a wave (backed by evidence).
2. Waves need a medium through which to move (incorrect premise, but backed by every observation made hitherto).
Therefore some kind of medium through which light moves must exist. (Luminiferous ether was the name given to this hypothetical medium).
***
The conclusion is wrong because premise 2 is wrong, but sound logic otherwise. All the premises were backed by evidence.
And the interesting thing is, proving the conclusion wrong is what taught us that premise 2 is wrong. As I said before: the "wrong idea" served as a sounding board for finding the correct idea.
1. Light is a wave (backed by evidence).
2. Waves need a medium through which to move (incorrect premise, but backed by every observation made hitherto).
Therefore some kind of medium through which light moves must exist. (Luminiferous ether was the name given to this hypothetical medium).
***
The conclusion is wrong because premise 2 is wrong, but sound logic otherwise. All the premises were backed by evidence.
And the interesting thing is, proving the conclusion wrong is what taught us that premise 2 is wrong. As I said before: the "wrong idea" served as a sounding board for finding the correct idea.