You make an excellent point.

Myself, the other day, I was thinking about seeming opposed positions which--with a little thought--come together and click. Like the controversy between Isaac Newton's classical conception of light as being composed of particles. While Thomas Young in the 19th Century proposed that light was composed of waves. He even did some tests which seemed [superficially] to back his position.

In thinking about the Higgs boson theory [i.e., that matter gets its mass as bosons (tiny particles) passing through the Ether. The resulting friction--which we perceive as static electricity--gives it a tiny charge of magnetism. So just as two magnets of the same pole pressed up against each other give the impression of a "force" between them, charged particles seem to attain heft after passing through the Ether.] At any rate, it occurred to me that as particles pass through the field, they'd be bending the very space around them. Meaning: Light really may be composed of particles, but that, as it warps the very space around it, it gives the impression that the particles are traveling in waves. But the reality is: The particles themselves are not moving; the space around them is.

So when Young did his primitive tests in the 19th Century and said, "Behold! Waves! I told you so!" he was only approaching it superficially.

He didn't have the concept yet that magnetism can actually bend space. That would have been unthinkable to him.

Yet that's what we observe in the lab.

So the whole controversy of whether light travels in particles or in waves resolves itself once you know more about the laws of Physics.

How did Aristotle put it? 1) Thesis, 2) Antithesis, and finally 3) Synthesis.