Given the boringness of other recent threads, I thought we might try an experiment.
The rules of this game are:
- Quote (preferably with link) to some particularly egregious Aristotelian or Thomist claim about cause and effect, formal or final causes, natural law ethics or whatever other obsolete concept shows up. This can be from the SN comments or from any other site.
- State a simple counterexample, either in the form of a physical object or process that violates the claimed principle, or in the form of an equally good Aristotelian explanation of why the opposite result should occur instead.
- Other commenters can then agree or disagree with the validity of your example.
- Please only do one example per top-level comment, and please don't do top-level comments otherwise.
I'll probably do a few to kick off...