ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th August 2018, 11:09 PM   #41
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Domestic violence is the no.1 cause of violence against women.
This is in direct contradiction to Peterson's claims that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women.
OK this context makes your comment more clear.

That said, domestic violence is usually reciprocal (both partners being violent), and in addition involves people who are constantly around each other (duh).

The fact that women are more likely to be hurt by people close to them is unsurprising, since the same is true for things like kidnapping, child abuse, etc.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 11:18 PM   #42
Lambchops
Muse
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
OK this context makes your comment more clear.

That said, domestic violence is usually reciprocal (both partners being violent), and in addition involves people who are constantly around each other (duh).

The fact that women are more likely to be hurt by people close to them is unsurprising, since the same is true for things like kidnapping, child abuse, etc.
So you agree that Petersons claim is utter BS?

As an aside; I would like to apologize for the way I went off on you in a different thread on here the other day. It was completely uncalled for, and I am sincerely sorry. I have no excuse for the way I behaved.
__________________
Remember what Ol' Dirty said.

Last edited by Lambchops; 25th August 2018 at 11:30 PM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 11:30 PM   #43
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,980
The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 08:20 AM   #44
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,540
Sorry, but this is the greatest Peterson video ever. https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/...564672?lang=en

Quote:
lmao Jordan Peterson actually believes the DNA double helix, discovered in 1953, is depicted in ancient Chinese, Aboriginal and Egyptian art (h/t @Lafargue & @OwenOver)
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 08:44 AM   #45
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
So you agree that Petersons claim is utter BS?

As an aside; I would like to apologize for the way I went off on you in a different thread on here the other day. It was completely uncalled for, and I am sincerely sorry. I have no excuse for the way I behaved.
Sorry, but which claim are you referring to?

and no worries
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 08:09 PM   #46
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sorry, but this is the greatest Peterson video ever. https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/...564672?lang=en
Ha ha! Classic!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 05:15 AM   #47
Tony99
Muse
 
Tony99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 764
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.
This^
Listened to a couple of long-form podcasts with Peterson to see what all the fuss was about.
He seems to boil down to make your bed everyday, eat right, exercise and do something meaningful.

I think he, like many academics that suddenly find themselves in the public light; fall victim to the soundbite or short online article.
They don't adjust their language to the audience. Terms like 'enforced monogamy' may not raise an eyebrow in the context of his classroom or some academic circles, but say that in a Buzzfeed article and watch the **** storm.
Tony99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 01:09 PM   #48
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I saw his chat with Dillahunty and thought it was quite interesting, because as I expected even though it wasn't a "debate" I do think Matt wiped the floor with him. Matt has 10 years of experience talking to people more sophisticated than Peterson on the topic of religion and is willing to interject as needed (and allow his opponent to speak) in a way that makes him a very formidable opponent. He's also reasonably charitable in the dozens or so debates I've seen him in (and his youtube series "Atheist Debates" where he goes in depth on a small religious topic for 15-40 mins)
I agree. You can even tell by Peterson's body language, particularly by the end of the debate, that he is uncomfortable. Almost as if Dellahunty had shaken the core of his belief system, and it was about to crumble completely.

Compare that to his body language on the interview with Cathy Newman. It's virtually the polar opposite. He sat the whole time almost motionless and relaxed, as if he was sitting on the center of his own self. Like a rough pillar that you can't knock down.

It's almost as if you can tell when someone is speaking truthfully and when they're trying to persuade you with ********, just by paying attention at their body language
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 27th August 2018 at 01:10 PM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 01:11 PM   #49
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.
Well, to be fair, it may be obvious to you and me. But to a great deal of people around the world, it isn't. So it still is important that there's someone (in this case, Peterson) speaking about it in an articulate matter.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 04:03 PM   #50
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,839
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Well, to be fair, it may be obvious to you and me. But to a great deal of people around the world, it isn't. So it still is important that there's someone (in this case, Peterson) speaking about it in an articulate matter.
What’s the importance of well articulated crap fooling a great deal of people around the world into believing it’s not crap? Important to the success of those spinning the crap I guess.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 27th August 2018 at 04:05 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 04:58 PM   #51
Lambchops
Muse
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Sorry, but which claim are you referring to?

and no worries
Peterson's claim that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women?

And thanks for accepting my apology. I have a sort of hair-trigger response to certain topics, but I'm trying to do better. It honestly was nothing personal.
__________________
Remember what Ol' Dirty said.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 04:59 PM   #52
Lambchops
Muse
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sorry, but this is the greatest Peterson video ever. https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/...564672?lang=en
Yeah, this is just. Wow... Comedy gold.
__________________
Remember what Ol' Dirty said.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 09:25 PM   #53
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Peterson's claim that it is unmarried men who cause the greatest harm to women?

And thanks for accepting my apology. I have a sort of hair-trigger response to certain topics, but I'm trying to do better. It honestly was nothing personal.
I think that's not true based on what someone else has said and basic intuition about domestic violence.
Just to be clear I'm not here as some kind of defender of Peterson. Sometimes I will "defend" in that I will correct what he has said or provide some more context but I will openly disagree with half of what he says. Mostly but not exclusively the religious nonsense.

Although now I'm not sure he specifically said that. Skimming through the thread again I don't see that claim, only the claim married men are less violent, which isn't exactly the same as saying that unmarried men are the greatest risk to women. I only skimmed, though, so if anyone knows where that claim was made by peterson please let me know.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 09:32 PM   #54
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Here's a perfect example of what I don't like about Jordan Peterson.

Sam Harris makes a statement about Peterson believing in God. Peterson refuses to answer it clearly.

Harris: "You say you believe in God..."
Peterson: "No, I say I act as though he exists, which is a much more precise claim."

But Peterson also denies Harris is a real atheist, because he too, apparently acts as though God exists.

Then he reads out some word salad about what "God" is. It's vague in such a way that the description can hardly be understood. Harris cuts through the ******** by saying, you may as well say that I believe in ghosts because ghosts can be defined the same way.

https://youtu.be/4D7VB_t0uLE?t=5001
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 06:20 AM   #55
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,303
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Here's a perfect example of what I don't like about Jordan Peterson.

Sam Harris makes a statement about Peterson believing in God. Peterson refuses to answer it clearly.

Harris: "You say you believe in God..."
Peterson: "No, I say I act as though he exists, which is a much more precise claim."

But Peterson also denies Harris is a real atheist, because he too, apparently acts as though God exists.

Then he reads out some word salad about what "God" is. It's vague in such a way that the description can hardly be understood. Harris cuts through the ******** by saying, you may as well say that I believe in ghosts because ghosts can be defined the same way.

https://youtu.be/4D7VB_t0uLE?t=5001
Yeah, I found the first podcast where they talked about truth very revealing as Sam brought out Peterson's views very clearly.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:30 AM   #56
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yeah, I found the first podcast where they talked about truth very revealing as Sam brought out Peterson's views very clearly.
Yes, Harris very effectively pinned him down on the issue of truth, and Peterson's claims that there is a distinction between "objective truth" and "mythical, archetypal truth that you had better bloody well believe or you will fail to get the gold from the dragon and in turn fail to propagate as a species and end up in Hell, or as Jung might say..."which is just as true as the other truth.

Harris showed time and again that Peterson's second idea of "truth" could be called "wisdom" and that various works of literature, not only Biblical stories (in fact, maybe to a lesser extent than, say, Shakespeare), have elements of wisdom to us, but they are NOT true!

Harris comes up with a good analogy and that is the wisdom that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. It's a very good way to live, but it isn't literally true.

My suspicion has always been that Peterson wants his interlocutors to say something like, "Okay, you're right, those stories do help me fulfill my Jungian archetypal hero's journey therefore I will accept the word true! And the Bible is one of those so it is true!"

And the big reveal for Peterson is, "Aha! So you do accept the truth of religion!" or some such lame conclusion.

Anyway, I found a couple more clips. Here's one which I mentioned earlier where Peterson is talking about how he is religious with Rogan. For some reason, I had remembered it as him saying he was an Orthodox Christian. Maybe he does later, I am not that interested in listening on. But it is him "reconciling" being scientific and a "deeply religious person". To be honest, most of what he then goes on to say is more word salad for me. Rogan seems to be drinking it all in with a "whoah, blows my mind" expression, and the You Tube comments are full of people who think Peterson is their "Lord":

https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE?t=7337
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:47 AM   #57
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Here's a perfect example of what I don't like about Jordan Peterson.

Sam Harris makes a statement about Peterson believing in God. Peterson refuses to answer it clearly.

Harris: "You say you believe in God..."
Peterson: "No, I say I act as though he exists, which is a much more precise claim."

But Peterson also denies Harris is a real atheist, because he too, apparently acts as though God exists.

Then he reads out some word salad about what "God" is. It's vague in such a way that the description can hardly be understood. Harris cuts through the ******** by saying, you may as well say that I believe in ghosts because ghosts can be defined the same way.

https://youtu.be/4D7VB_t0uLE?t=5001
Yeah, agreed. The whole "You act as if you believe" assertion is just complete meaningless jargon in the way he develops on the topic. If anything, at times Peterson acts as someone who doesn't believe in half of the stuff he says about God, and about being very precise with words. For instance, when he's talking about the Gender Pronoun issue, he does assert that we have to be very precise with the meaning of words and not manipulate them to better suit our needs, etc (I'm paraphrasing by the way), but when it comes to his Religious beliefs, he acts exactly the opposite way.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 07:59 AM   #58
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yes, Harris very effectively pinned him down on the issue of truth, and Peterson's claims that there is a distinction between "objective truth" and "mythical, archetypal truth that you had better bloody well believe or you will fail to get the gold from the dragon and in turn fail to propagate as a species and end up in Hell, or as Jung might say..."which is just as true as the other truth.

Harris showed time and again that Peterson's second idea of "truth" could be called "wisdom" and that various works of literature, not only Biblical stories (in fact, maybe to a lesser extent than, say, Shakespeare), have elements of wisdom to us, but they are NOT true!

Harris comes up with a good analogy and that is the wisdom that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. It's a very good way to live, but it isn't literally true.

My suspicion has always been that Peterson wants his interlocutors to say something like, "Okay, you're right, those stories do help me fulfill my Jungian archetypal hero's journey therefore I will accept the word true! And the Bible is one of those so it is true!"

And the big reveal for Peterson is, "Aha! So you do accept the truth of religion!" or some such lame conclusion.

Anyway, I found a couple more clips. Here's one which I mentioned earlier where Peterson is talking about how he is religious with Rogan. For some reason, I had remembered it as him saying he was an Orthodox Christian. Maybe he does later, I am not that interested in listening on. But it is him "reconciling" being scientific and a "deeply religious person". To be honest, most of what he then goes on to say is more word salad for me. Rogan seems to be drinking it all in with a "whoah, blows my mind" expression, and the You Tube comments are full of people who think Peterson is their "Lord":

https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE?t=7337
There's something very interesting I found yesterday, and at the risk of derailing my own thread, I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast with Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Tyson said that he had 3 definitions of True

Objective Truth: Which is the sum of facts that we know about the world, and which we can measure and demonstrate using the tools of science

Personal Truth: Which is things that you strongly believe in, that are true for you (In other words, personal religious experiences for individual people)

Political Truth: Something that has been repeated so much through the crowds, that it starts becoming accepted as if it were true

He then adds that the problem is when someone tries to force other people to accept/enforce their personal truths.

Then of course, Rogan mentioned the interview between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris discussing about the meaning of the word truth.


While I'll agree that this is sounding very close to Peterson's alternative usage of the word True, I would say that the main difference is, first of all, that Tyson isn't negating that there's an objective truth that has nothing to do with your subjective experiences ("Personal Truth") In fact, he's not actually making a claim that there is actually more than one type of truth (not in the objective sense) He's creating sub-categories of the word to define other ways of understanding the world that a lot of people have defined as "truth" over Centuries. Because of this long tradition of the usage of the word, he concludes that it's a waste of energy to try to take away people's alternative use of a word, while at the same time being very clear that someone's "Personal Truth" is not the same from the Objective Truth. He's being very clear about which place each truth deserves.

The difference is that Peterson uses different definitions of the word interchangeably, so that there's no consistency about which definition of the word he's using at any given time, making it for an intellectually dishonest discourse; which is a typical manipulation of words that Religious people do: They'll change back and forth between definitions of words such as "truth", "God", "Real", etc, to suit their needs. So Peterson jumps the shark by saying things such as, for instance, that a fictional story with a strong moral message is more real than real (in this case, the word "real" is the one that starts losing meaning thanks to his use of sophistry)
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 28th August 2018 at 08:01 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 11:09 AM   #59
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,122
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
There's something very interesting I found yesterday, and at the risk of derailing my own thread, I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast with Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Tyson said that he had 3 definitions of True

Objective Truth: Which is the sum of facts that we know about the world, and which we can measure and demonstrate using the tools of science

Personal Truth: Which is things that you strongly believe in, that are true for you (In other words, personal religious experiences for individual people)

Political Truth: Something that has been repeated so much through the crowds, that it starts becoming accepted as if it were true
That's just Tyson fumbling around in the dark because he refuses to take philosophy seriously. I particularly like that he elevated what the rest of us call conventional wisdom to a species of truth, and then bakes "It's not necessarily true" into the definition. He also expresses a crude scientism that elevates science to the only source of epistemically sound truth. "All bachelors are unmarried" isn't a proposition we need to measure and demonstrate, isn't scientific in any way, but it's certainly true.

There are people who can give you good information on these subjects, so why turn to the people who palpably have no idea what they're talking about? Probably because they take on the right targets. Jordan Peterson appeals to the same kind of person who watches YouTube compilation videos with titles like "Seven times atheists DESTROYED religious arguments", except he goes after "post-modern cultural Marxists" and other...Jungian archetypes.

In addition to Peterson's tenuous relationship with the truth (treating it tactically, rather than as the end of rational inquiry), he's just kind of insufferably whiny. I recall a debate where he threw a tantrum about how he'd go to jail before paying a fine for using the wrong pronoun. His opponent, a Canadian law professor (I think?) cannily responded with "Sorry, you don't get to go to jail for that."
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 11:36 AM   #60
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,088
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Yeah, agreed. The whole "You act as if you believe" assertion is just complete meaningless jargon in the way he develops on the topic. If anything, at times Peterson acts as someone who doesn't believe in half of the stuff he says about God, and about being very precise with words.
I've sort of halfway developed a theory that many traditional concepts of faith are being effected by the Post-Truth world paradigm shift almost as much as more rational ways of thought are and are trying to re-invent itself via about a half dozen methods.

That's why so much... Woo these days seems less like someone being wrong and someone trying to convince others (and themselves) that being wrong doesn't matter.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 06:17 PM   #61
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
There's something very interesting I found yesterday, and at the risk of derailing my own thread, I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast with Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Tyson said that he had 3 definitions of True

Objective Truth: Which is the sum of facts that we know about the world, and which we can measure and demonstrate using the tools of science

Personal Truth: Which is things that you strongly believe in, that are true for you (In other words, personal religious experiences for individual people)

Political Truth: Something that has been repeated so much through the crowds, that it starts becoming accepted as if it were true

He then adds that the problem is when someone tries to force other people to accept/enforce their personal truths.

Then of course, Rogan mentioned the interview between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris discussing about the meaning of the word truth.


While I'll agree that this is sounding very close to Peterson's alternative usage of the word True, I would say that the main difference is, first of all, that Tyson isn't negating that there's an objective truth that has nothing to do with your subjective experiences ("Personal Truth") In fact, he's not actually making a claim that there is actually more than one type of truth (not in the objective sense) He's creating sub-categories of the word to define other ways of understanding the world that a lot of people have defined as "truth" over Centuries. Because of this long tradition of the usage of the word, he concludes that it's a waste of energy to try to take away people's alternative use of a word, while at the same time being very clear that someone's "Personal Truth" is not the same from the Objective Truth. He's being very clear about which place each truth deserves.

The difference is that Peterson uses different definitions of the word interchangeably, so that there's no consistency about which definition of the word he's using at any given time, making it for an intellectually dishonest discourse; which is a typical manipulation of words that Religious people do: They'll change back and forth between definitions of words such as "truth", "God", "Real", etc, to suit their needs. So Peterson jumps the shark by saying things such as, for instance, that a fictional story with a strong moral message is more real than real (in this case, the word "real" is the one that starts losing meaning thanks to his use of sophistry)
I’ve just listened to the NDT podcast where he waffles about his different ideas of truth and I found it infuriating.

Seriously, his taxonomy is out-to-lunch. Even his definition of “objective truth” is wrong because it requires a sociological component. He says that objective truth is only true when other people have verified it. And once it is true it can never become false. Huh?

No! The only relevant meaning of truth here is that it is mind-independent. For example, if another planet exists out in the Kuiper Belt then it exists regardless of whether or not it has been discovered yet.

This is why there was a great question in the Dillahunty debate when someone asked Peterson, “if humans suddenly ceased to exist, would there still be a God?” It gets to the question of whether or not Peterson is talking about a really existing being or just a human fabrication. Naturally, Peterson refused to answer the question clearly saying it was complicated.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 06:34 PM   #62
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've sort of halfway developed a theory that many traditional concepts of faith are being effected by the Post-Truth world paradigm shift almost as much as more rational ways of thought are and are trying to re-invent itself via about a half dozen methods.

That's why so much... Woo these days seems less like someone being wrong and someone trying to convince others (and themselves) that being wrong doesn't matter.
Um....I don’t know what “Post-Truth paradigm” exists, but the most ironic thing about Peterson’s worldview is that he adopts the very repudiation of baseline truth that he bemoans in post-modernism and which renders his worldview just as incoherent.

In the post-modern case, people such as Derrida, and to some extent Foucault, appeared to argue that classical views of truth were just tools of oppression or sources of “power” for authorities. Actually, this is BS because the truth is the truth and it has a nasty way of destroying fictions that you just wish were true and that is true not just for the weak but also the powerful. Peterson’s rear-guard defence of religion seems to be asserting that even if we can prove that the claims of religion are demonstrably false then they are still “true” just in another way. Praise the lord! Hallelujah! That is at bottom the aim of all his waffle.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 12:56 AM   #63
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,303
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I’ve just listened to the NDT podcast where he waffles about his different ideas of truth and I found it infuriating.

Seriously, his taxonomy is out-to-lunch. Even his definition of “objective truth” is wrong because it requires a sociological component. He says that objective truth is only true when other people have verified it. And once it is true it can never become false. Huh?

No! The only relevant meaning of truth here is that it is mind-independent. For example, if another planet exists out in the Kuiper Belt then it exists regardless of whether or not it has been discovered yet.

This is why there was a great question in the Dillahunty debate when someone asked Peterson, “if humans suddenly ceased to exist, would there still be a God?” It gets to the question of whether or not Peterson is talking about a really existing being or just a human fabrication. Naturally, Peterson refused to answer the question clearly saying it was complicated.
Yes! Well said.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 04:50 AM   #64
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yes! Well said.
Having said that, I probably should have said that there is a subset of facts that is mind dependent such as "I am now thinking of a penguin." and furthermore Harris himself has argued that values are themselves facts about the world, for example, it is a fact that people prefer well-being over misery etc... or there may be some facts that will remain undiscoverable such as "John F. Kennedy's last thought before he was shot" etc..., but NDT and Peterson, in their own ways, seem to be conjuring up uses for the word "truth" which they have not justified.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 12:53 PM   #65
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,019
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
This is why there was a great question in the Dillahunty debate when someone asked Peterson, “if humans suddenly ceased to exist, would there still be a God?” It gets to the question of whether or not Peterson is talking about a really existing being or just a human fabrication. Naturally, Peterson refused to answer the question clearly saying it was complicated.
Absolutely. I agree, that was a very key point in the discussion because it seems that the person asking the question was really trying to get to the essence of Peterson's belief at the very core. And I'm not amazed that Peterson pretty much dodged the question. Because the beliefs Peterson hold seem closer to a "Consciousness creates reality" (specifically human consciousness) type of argument, than to an actual Religious belief in a God, in the formal sense.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 01:58 PM   #66
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I'm one of the many who has been following Jordan Peterson. My first exposure to him was the famous interview with Cathy So-you're-saying Newman. Peterson always struck me as a very rational fella, and even after I first heard him talk about the Metaphysical, and after realizing that he's a Christian, I thought he could nonetheless be a very important voice in today's era.

And while he does sustain very reasonable positions on Social Issues, such as the #metoo movement, gender pronouns and freedom of speech, I must say, when it comes to Religion and the supernatural, his positions are really poor and bordering on childish.
Absolutely, and it informs us on the reasons behind his opinions. In fact, one wonders if his reasonable positions on the issues you mention aren't held because of his religious views, rather than facts and reason.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 02:23 PM   #67
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
I'm curious as to how Mr Peterson believes that society should force me into monogamy. I'm potentially willing, even eager, to go along with this, though the devil may be in the details. Am I to understand that Mr Peterson believes that the government should be charged with procuring a woman for me? Do I get a selection, or will one simply be assigned to me?
I had to import mine.

Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I could not agree more. Like I posted in another thread, I see him as one of the greatest unintentional comedians of our time. Some of his ramblings are absolutely hilarious.
I thought, so long as he was arguing against the very far left, he had some good points, but as soon as he stepped out of that territory, his biases and factless opinions became apparent.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 02:38 PM   #68
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
He uses the term "enforced monogamy" to appeal to Incels and various other bottom of the barrel right-wing losers.
Er... that's not what an incel is. "Incel" means involuntary celibate, meaning, you're single but would rather not. Have we not all been there?

Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Wow, he is such a moron. And people actually buy this ****...
Well, is it true or not?

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The problem is that when Peterson is right, it's on something that is totally obvious.
Beyond that, he is either vague or woefully uninformed.
You could say that about anyone's claims, though.

Originally Posted by Tony99 View Post
I think he, like many academics that suddenly find themselves in the public light; fall victim to the soundbite or short online article.
True.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 10:05 PM   #69
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,996
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, is it true or not?
Real truth or Peterson truth?

Real truth has spoken and says, "oh, not even wrong!"
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 06:20 AM   #70
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Real truth or Peterson truth?

Real truth has spoken and says, "oh, not even wrong!"
Objectively true. I'm seriously asking the question. It's one thing to call something ridiculous, but sometimes what we think is ridiculous is true.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 07:00 AM   #71
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,749
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's a non-sequitur that monogamy makes men less violent.
Regular access to SEX makes men less violent.

If Peterson was right, there would be no such thing as Domestic Violence.
I think its a bit more complex than that. Its not just sex, though that's important, but also access to permanent mates. There's likely a status issue and proximity to children(its been shown to reduce testosterone production) that play a role in reducing violence perpetrated by young men. Its also not just monogamy, that's a more than a little

Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Look, I think he is quite often vague and dodgy on some topics, but I think that's just how he addresses those topics (religion, philosophy). When it comes to other topics I think he is normally straight-forward (whether I agree with him or not). I think "enforced monogamy" as a term left unexplained easily implies all the worst things his critics would like to nail him with (government forcing marriages, or something). His carelessness there surprised me.

That he later clarified this doesn't undo the damage to his reputation.
*shrug*
That's a criticism of him I've heard elsewhere, that he's vague and dodgy while presenting himself as certain.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yeah, I listened to the first Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson debate after having heard Peterson making it pretty clear on a Joe Rogan podcast that he is an Orthodox Christian.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which one - Eastern or Oriental? One suspects he has no actual doctrinal beliefs just whatever supports whatever criticism he is making today.
"O"rthodox or "o"rthodox? Those things aren't always the same. I suspect he meant small "o".

Last edited by ahhell; 30th August 2018 at 07:03 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 08:00 AM   #72
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,875
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
"O"rthodox or "o"rthodox? Those things aren't always the same. I suspect he meant small "o".
Actually, I am suspecting more and more that I was completely wrong. I haven't listened to the rest of that Rogan podcast where he starts talking about how he is religious because so much of it is just meaningless to me, so it is possible that he says so in the rest of that conversation. I decided to go to Wikipedia instead and see if it would be cleared up there. It sent me to this video (yes, another one! Sorry!) in which he says he is a Christian but then goes into waffle mode again about what he means by that...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 08:35 AM   #73
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,996
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Objectively true. I'm seriously asking the question. It's one thing to call something ridiculous, but sometimes what we think is ridiculous is true.
I don't know about others, but I've seen enough of his videos and video snippets to know just how wrong he is. I've also seen many others point out the fallacies and so forth that he makes about all kinds of topics so, for me personally, he's full of crap.

I'm sure others here have had similar experiences either by watching Peterson's videos and thinking critically or watching others do the same.

Thing is, it's really not difficult if you have any experience at critical thinking or if you approach his stuff with a little skepticism. As far as I've seen, he pretty much uses the same talking points as religious conservative/right wing people do so it's natural that they would agree with him; this is my basis for harping on the 'fantasy' aspect so much earlier.

He's a big proponent of Jungian archetypes but only if they're Christian or Christian-like; he uses the same tired and debunked claims of socialism and Marxism (I ran across him first during my own studies of same which is why I know he's full of crap on this one); he makes rather misogynistic claims about the role and status of women indicative of the conservative viewpoint**; and I know others here can fill in the blanks.










** One example is that he said outright that men can never truly talk with women because when a man talks with another man, there is always the threat of physical violence hovering under the mask of civility (like if a person says something terrible or whatever, a man can smack another man because that's what masculine men do) so therefore there is always at least a hint of respect for one another (you respect someone who can beat the snot out of you apparently) and since you cannot hit women any longer because feminism, there is no longer the same underlying thread (not threat but thread) of respect that a man has when in conversation with women.

I've been halfheartedly trying to find some of these videos pointing this stuff out to post here but since I've seen so many, it's been difficult.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 11:48 AM   #74
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,122
I've watched a few more minutes of Jordan Peterson, and man, this guy is full of **** up to his eyeballs.

In the video I just watched, he does his standard equivocation about a simple question like "Do you believe in God?" (he doesn't want to be "boxed in" by, you know, answering honestly), but then he gives a breathtaking response when asked about the resurrection, saying that he doesn't know what happens when someone is in "total alignment", and attempts to throw up a smokescreen for this ******** by saying that we understand so little about the world. Is this guy about to try to sell me some ******* crystals?

I think he's just your standard faithful conservative Christian who is willing to embrace whatever nonsense he thinks will rationalize his views to while minimizing the threat to his academic drag show.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 12:18 PM   #75
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I don't know about others, but I've seen enough of his videos and video snippets to know just how wrong he is.
I know he's very often wrong, but the broken clock principle applies. Most people are right sometimes. So if a specific claim is made, a person's track record has no bearing on whether the claim is true.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 12:24 PM   #76
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,996
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I know he's very often wrong, but the broken clock principle applies. Most people are right sometimes. So if a specific claim is made, a person's track record has no bearing on whether the claim is true.
As I said, if he is right about stuff, it hasn't been in the videos I've seen.

I haven't read the clean your room book so I can't comment. He could very well be right that keeping your room clean is a generally good thing. So, if you like, we can all agree his self-help book is true in the real sense of being true.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 09:22 AM   #77
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
As I said, if he is right about stuff, it hasn't been in the videos I've seen.
Yeah, nothing comes to mind. There are things where it's a matter of opinion, and in those cases I virtually always disagree with him. Also even though you can't really call an opinion wrong, he often states his opinions as if they're irrefutable and objective truths and then cites "facts" to support them that are at least partially wrong. Likewise with any non-opinion things he says, he's at least partially wrong on a factual level and if you try to diagram one of his sentences there's a good chance you'll be lost forever because he relies on vague meandering nonsense that sounds like folksy wisdom but is actually complete nonsense.

I cannot understand why anyone takes him seriously on anything at all.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 10:17 AM   #78
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,996
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Yeah, nothing comes to mind. There are things where it's a matter of opinion, and in those cases I virtually always disagree with him. Also even though you can't really call an opinion wrong, he often states his opinions as if they're irrefutable and objective truths and then cites "facts" to support them that are at least partially wrong. Likewise with any non-opinion things he says, he's at least partially wrong on a factual level and if you try to diagram one of his sentences there's a good chance you'll be lost forever because he relies on vague meandering nonsense that sounds like folksy wisdom but is actually complete nonsense.

I cannot understand why anyone takes him seriously on anything at all.
You just answered yourself. As I keep harping on, in this case he is selling fantasy and I believe that some people --- especially Americans --- are being told that reality doesn't matter and fantasy rules. It happens with religion, advertising, 'evidence' manufacturing, plausible deniability, and now fake news.

It's not just limited to that but these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Peterson is finding out that it's easy to scam Americans if you say what they want to hear.

I think it's not really the mechanism, in a sense, of how he says it, but what the conclusions are he is drawing. For example, he can yap on and on about (carefully Christianized) Jungian archetypes which sound all sciency and philosophical (and also reinforce the idea that Christians are right and have been right all along) but he eventually gets down to the message that masculine men control their women who must stay at home barefoot and preggers.

He could just come right out and say the latter but then he's not providing all the other feel-good structure that simultaneously can be used as obfuscation for detractors as well as dog whistling to the people who he knows will pay good money to hear what he is saying.

So in that sense, he's fairly intelligent and now I read another thread where he and his daughter are doing the diet-guru thing. That tells me he's again pushing fantasy ("you too will look and feel great if you just follow my advice and pay me money every month!") in order to rip people off.

The sad part of all of this is that the people themselves don't recognize they're being ripped off and will even pay money to defend Petersen on his behalf.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 11:05 AM   #79
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,540
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
So in that sense, he's fairly intelligent and now I read another thread where he and his daughter are doing the diet-guru thing. That tells me he's again pushing fantasy ("you too will look and feel great if you just follow my advice and pay me money every month!") in order to rip people off.
And that's the cue for the second greatest Peterson clip ever!

Apologies for the obnoxious images spliced in.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2018, 01:08 PM   #80
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,996
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
And that's the cue for the second greatest Peterson clip ever!

Apologies for the obnoxious images spliced in.
I love the comment, "apple cider is postmodern neomarxism confirmed"

I lol'ed.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.