Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
davros of skaro

Jordan Peterson & Matt Dillahunty

77 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Liquid Gardens
3 hours ago, eight bits said:

If you don't know what his claim is (and you don't, because if you did, then you wouldn't be asking me), then how do you know it's pseudoscientific at all? The only claim that's been documented is that Peterson says he holds some belief about some artwork that he describes as speculation.

I don't 'know' that it is pseudoscientific but as I said, the literal meaning of his words sure look pseudoscientific and there is already an established canon of woo that argues along the lines of the literal meaning of his words.  If he would have said, 'I really think that thing in the sky in this ancient artwork is an alien craft', is it similarly out of bounds to refer to that as woo?  Or must we first conduct an exhaustive survey of everything he's written and said (and Chopra, et al) to see if there is some unknown translation of this that is both not woo and not inanely obvious (like that there's a resemblance)?  

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Now we're down to complaining that Peterson does NOT actually pitch the woo that you're oh so sure he's thinking. That, and there's something wrong with me that I can't read his mind.

I'm not sure that's what he's thinking, I'm just increasingly sure that he's a sloppy (I suspect intentionally) communicator.  There's nothing wrong with you not being able to read his mind, it's that to me you are then threading a very narrow and possibly inconsistent needle here.  When asked for specifics you're not sure what he's referring to and don't agree with him on everything and keep your distance, but when he's criticized on some of these same things you defend him.  In other words, it seems somewhat illogical for you to criticize the characterization of this as woo and suggest it's non-woo if you also don't know what he's talking about; how do you know its proper placement on the woo-axis (I'm using 'woo' so much I'm starting to sound like Dr Seuss...) without knowing what he means?  As I said, I need only rely on what his words literally mean and already popular woo to justify my suspicion that this is also woo.

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

A representation of one thing by another.

Depending on what that might mean then Peterson is not seeing something I don't, and I don't disagree with it. Depending on what that might mean then Peterson is also not seeing something that I don't but I don't agree with it.  You and davros are talking about more interesting subjects than this so I don't want to belabor this since we're going around in circles now, but I would hope you at least see pretty plainly what about his statement sure looks, swims, and quacks like woo.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

The literal meaning of his words are that he believes something which he doesn't describe with any useful specificity, holding to it with a level of confidence that he calls speculative, and whose subject matter he places at the far reaches of his knowledge.

I'll happily cop to the "inconsistency" of requiring more support for claims of personal wrongdoing amd professional misconduct than for neutral and impersonal fact-claims. What you call inconsistency, I call decency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.