I'm picturing London city officials in the 19th century saying "hey, the germ theory really doesn't tell us anything useful about policies for water supply purity, trash collection, sewers, or anything else." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak …https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1110585588082716674 …
-
-
Replying to @futurepundit
Unless you are under the weird constraint of needing things to actually work. I mean, even if we found that, due to newly discovered biological factors, an all-female army in the Bronze Age ( or in 1942) would always lose, even to Italians, we could still make that choice.
2 replies 4 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @futurepundit
Of course any society that made much an insane choice would rapidly be replaced by another civ that was at least a little saner.
2 replies 3 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @futurepundit
This is actually pretty close to "deriving ought from is". Ethics is ontologically edited.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
... "Morally right but concretely inconsistent with existence" doesn't really mean much.
0 replies
1 retweet
2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.