Silly

Starting in the 1970s, we have a stunning actual proof for relativity applied to gravity in the calculations for the orbit of Mercury. Newtonian physics would offer a description of an elliptical orbit, while the more precise relativistic one defines a bottle-opener swirl. Measurements show the latter is correct.  So the clock-like world of the Moderns is no more; we are in an evolving universe. Other predictions for relativity also find takers: black holes, gravitational lensing, multiple images, (and currently gravitational waves) all effects of gravitational forces on light.

Work in  philosophy is intertwined with the whole. Karl Popper (London) had been afraid that relativity's predictions might prove false. His advance in philosophy is that scientific views are never positively established: their negation is shown to be false. A more cogent uptake of this position is later taken by Thomas Kuhn in the US: it is the notion of paradigm shift in science, now part of popular culture.
                                                                                    * * *
One of the more interesting aspects of thought in the 20th century is the struggle with the duality of light, both matter and particle in earlier work. From the Netherlands, Huygens had done work in optics that argued for light as a frontal wave. Newton's work had been consistent with light as a particle. It seemed impossible to resolve the issue. But analytically, it is not a paradox.  The thing to remember is that we are not apprehending a thing, but describing effects. The illustration below shows us how incompatible descriptions can co-exist. Depending on one's interest in the matter, we have a square or a circle.

Can one then ask which is primary: are waves reducible to points, or do points carry wave patterns. Both are true, silly.