(October 26, 2021 at 5:52 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 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.
One thing I am interested in is how such wrong ideas arise, maintain themselves, and die. Often, they seem to almost be essential steps in the process. For example, the whole notion of natural laws that could be understood by humans was developed (in part, not wholly) under theist assumptions of a good deity that created humans to use reason. Eventually, many left behind the theological justifications and now see natural laws as meaningful in and of themselves.