0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Most people are ignorant about almost everything, and there's a lot of rubbish on the internet. Thanks to AI, there's an infinite amount of recycled rubbish too. But there's a lot of knowledge and understanding in good science textbooks.
Good textbooks give you equations that predict what you actually observe.
I have textbooks that explain why the concept is an oxymoron. I think we discussed it at least a year ago.
Edges diffract. The diffracted intensity downstream of a "permeable edge" is likely to be weak and probably swamped by refraction.
This concept falls under the umbrella of the problem of induction. Here's why:We might see many white swans and conclude "all swans are white." This is based on observing multiple instances.But logic doesn't allow us to guarantee a universal truth from specific examples. There could always be a black swan we haven't encountered yet.The discovery of black swans in Australia in the 17th century famously disproved the idea that all swans are white. This highlights the importance of considering the possibility of exceptions when making generalizations.There isn't a single, universally agreed-upon name for this specific fallacy, but some terms that might be relevant include:Affirming the consequent: This fallacy occurs when you assume because something follows from a hypothesis, the hypothesis must be true. In this case, seeing only white swans might lead you to believe all swans are white, which isn't necessarily true.False dichotomy: This fallacy presents a situation as having only two options, when there might be more. In this case, it might lead someone to think swans are either white or not swans (black), excluding the possibility of swans having other colors.So, while the statement itself isn't a fallacy, it demonstrates an important concept in logic: don't mistake limited observations for absolute truths.