I don't think distinct elements alone is adequate evidence, I mean we could imagine a world where there are types of matter which are just plain different. However, exothermic and endothermic reactions are hard to explain without some kind of bonds, which need to be between something and something, so that's a pretty good argument.
My memory of chemistry in school was that it was mostly "these things exist, memorize them". I definitely don't remember any teacher attempting to prove atoms against a devil's advocate.
My memory of chemistry in school was that it was mostly "these things exist, memorize them". I definitely don't remember any teacher attempting to prove atoms against a devil's advocate.
Follow
@cjd @LukeAlmighty @Witch_Hunter_Siegfired How can they be different if they can mix infinitely? You can pick apart a salat with a fork but you can hardly remove the pepperoni from a blended pizza. The best I can really guess is if they existed as separate layers of reality within hard shapes and could overlap but not mix, but that is getting a lot more convoluted than having little bits of stuff
I am for playing devil's advocate, but there are definitely better things to do it with than the foundation of all modern chemistry
In my school we did not do devil's advocate but we did spend a decent amount of time on the history of the things we learned and why we think the things we think. It might just be different in Iceland
I see, no I've never seriously imagined any alternative to traditional atomic theory, but I like the question as a midwit trap because it looks incredibly dumb, but countering it is harder than it first appears.
