3 ms·
> It's amusing you believe those projections The paper explains the methodology and lists references to the data. You can go through them and check the calcula
by T-A 7y ago
> It's amusing you believe those projections
The paper explains the methodology and lists references to the data. You can go through them and check the calculations yourself.
> Think about the motivations for the people making estimates
That's another logical fallacy, a classic one known as "ad hominem". Their motivations are utterly irrelevant to the question whether their results are correct.
If you think their work is in error, show how.
- pfdietz 7y ago> If you think their work is in error, show how. That's now how it works. If they put together a big, complicated cost model, it's up to them to provide evidence it's valid. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in "believe us, we're honest". For example, they could apply the same model to fission reactors and show it accurately predicts what they end up costing. Oddly, I don't recall fusion cost modelers ever doing that. Hell, I don't recall fission cost models being terribly accurate. You like this result because it's telling you what you want to hear, not because it's intrisically believable. More motivated reasoning.
- T-A 7y ago> That's now how it works. Yes it is. They presented their work, their sources and conclusions. If you believe it's wrong, but can not explain why, all you have is a prejudice. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to provide a rational argument explaining exactly how they are wrong, not just why you want to believe that they are.