• Fawkes@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 days ago

    Strongly disagree. Your perception of what the most efficient method of energy generation is, is entirely irrelevant. Your perception of geology and biology is entirely irrelevant. Opinion and feelings are not acceptable substitutions for objective reality.

    • jdr@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’d argue objective reality is irrelevant, if everyone thinks Pelletiers are more efficient than stream turbines then that’s what’s going to get built. Maybe the use breeder reactors in the Realm of Forms, but here I’m stuck with coal because of PR.

      • Fawkes@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        If you want to argue that objective reality is irrelevant, then you need to abandon any and all notions of it. Jump off a cliff, objectively reality says you’ll die. Cut off your arm, objective reality says it won’t grow back. Drink bleach, objective reality says you’ll die.

        You’d only argue against objective reality when it’s convenient for supporting beliefs.

        • jdr@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          You first!

          This is well-trodden philosophical territory that I don’t think we’re going to add much to.

          • Fawkes@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            No it isn’t. This is the basic laws of physics. Philosophy asks questions that science cannot answer. You’re not asking coherent questions, you’re making self-defeating claims without basis. That’s not philosophy, it’s religion.