An interesting alternative view to this…
And an interesting rejoinder to that alternative view…
It is an interesting alternative view indeed, as many counterarguments by academics often are; but one that I find unpersuasive (and I also find its logic to be flawed). Just because a light bulb and a candle aim ultimately to achieve the same goal or solve the same problem (ie, how to provide a source of light that is available on demand) doesn’t undermine the original quote in any way. In my view, there is no similarity between a candle and a light bulb other than the problem that they are trying to solve. An aeroplane and a bicycle also aim ultimately to solve the same problem (ie, transportation from one place to another), but nobody would claim that an aeroplane (or a space shuttle, or a train, or a ship, or even a car) comes from the continuous improvement of the bicycle. In each case, people needed to go back to the drawing board, and envisage a different approach to the problem, rather than trying to improve the existing approach.