• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Video comparing Jordan Peterson to Anglicanism, both of them hurting the selling power of Christianity

 
 
 
repoman

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
8,617
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism


It is slightly long, but worth the time I think.

11:30-12:19 interesting point

15:08-end is the summation if time is short.
 
Does anyone actually take Jordan Peterson seriously?

Oh.

Right.

You're a fascist. You're used to alternative facts, questionable logic and nutty conspiracy theories.
 
Underseer said:
Does anyone actually take Jordan Peterson seriously?

Oh.

Right.

You're a fascist. You're used to alternative facts, questionable logic and nutty conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Tons of people take him seriously. He's a serious person. The only people who do not are the ideologically possessed like yourself.
 
J842P said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
We are not lobsters. Peterson is a silly person.
Click to expand...

What, precisely, is this supposed to be a response to? Has Peterson claimed that we are lobsters?
Click to expand...

Peterson has loudly and repeatedly argued that since lobsters have a social hierarchy among themselves, that we humans have a lobster like social hierarchy. Muddled thinking at it's best. Google P.Z. Meyers, lobster and Peterson for more examinations of Peterson's ignorance about science, man, and lobsters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqx57l781WM
 
skepticalbip said:
J842P said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
We are not lobsters. Peterson is a silly person.
Click to expand...

What, precisely, is this supposed to be a response to? Has Peterson claimed that we are lobsters?
Click to expand...

Apparently Charlie doesn't believe that humans develop hierarchies in our social system structures.
Click to expand...

Lobster society is pretty rigid, it is hard wired behavior. Lobsters are not deep thinkers. Man has developed an ability to think abstract thoughts that can be rather complex. Our societies over many centuries of recorded history have been varied and are not the same sort of rote hard wired behavior of simple animals. Such as lobsters. One cannot blindly argue lobster social hierarchies tell us about how our societies work. Peterson's burblings are pseudo-intellectual nonsense on this issue. P.Z. Meyers has had quite a jolly time on his blog, Pharyngula, looking into Peterson's take on biology and science. Naturally, outraged Peterson Lobsterians object heatedly. A fine time is enjoyed by all.
 
His fans wear lobster tshirts.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
skepticalbip said:
Apparently Charlie doesn't believe that humans develop hierarchies in our social system structures.
Click to expand...

Lobster society is pretty rigid, it is hard wired behavior. Lobsters are not deep thinkers. Man has developed an ability to think abstract thoughts that can be rather complex. Our societies over many centuries of recorded history have been varied and are not the same sort of rote hard wired behavior of simple animals. Such as lobsters. One cannot blindly argue lobster social hierarchies tell us about how our societies work. Peterson's burblings are pseudo-intellectual nonsense on this issue. P.Z. Meyers has had quite a jolly time on his blog, Pharyngula, looking into Peterson's take on biology and science. Naturally, outraged Peterson Lobsterians object heatedly. A fine time is enjoyed by all.
Click to expand...

P.Z. Meyer's is a partisan hack and is a more prominent blogger than scientist. What Jordan Peterson states about lobsters is not controversial to anyone in the animal behavior / ethological community.

But again, what precisely did Jordan Peterson say that you think is incorrect or "silly"? What was the exact claim that was pseudoscientific? This should be pretty easy to point out.
 
Wikipedia
Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change.[109] Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change".[110] He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[111]

In a 2018 Cambridge Union address[112], Peterson replied that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is "low-resolution thinking", and there are other more important issues in the world.


Peterson shoots his mouth off a lot about things he obviously knows little about. A number of surveys show 97% agreement among climate scientists that agree climate change is caused by humans and is a serious problem. I do not follow Peterson's idiocy very deeply but enough of his idiocy has come to my attention to state my opinion he is indeed, an idiot. It is always worrying when an idiot gains a mass following of fellow idiots. If he stuck to what he really knows and didn't sound off on things which he has small understanding and is wrong about, he'd be harmless enough. But that is not what he does all too often. If the vast majority of thousands of climate scientists tel us climate change is a problem, I am going to go with the scientific consensus. Not the ramblings of climate denialist like Peterson. No matter how many rabid followers he has.
 
He does say stupid stuff about how lobsters relate to humans. When he ventures outside his lane, he flails.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
Wikipedia
Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change.[109] Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change".[110] He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[111]

In a 2018 Cambridge Union address[112], Peterson replied that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is "low-resolution thinking", and there are other more important issues in the world.


Peterson shoots his mouth off a lot about things he obviously knows little about. A number of surveys show 97% agreement among climate scientists that agree climate change is caused by humans and is a serious problem. I do not follow Peterson's idiocy very deeply but enough of his idiocy has come to my attention to state my opinion he is indeed, an idiot. It is always worrying when an idiot gains a mass following of fellow idiots. If he stuck to what he really knows and didn't sound off on things which he has small understanding and is wrong about, he'd be harmless enough. But that is not what he does all too often. If the vast majority of thousands of climate scientists tel us climate change is a problem, I am going to go with the scientific consensus. Not the ramblings of climate denialist like Peterson. No matter how many rabid followers he has.
Click to expand...

These aren't examples of pseudoscience, even if taken at face value, which I am not willing to do. Regarding the Cambridge Union address, I saw that, and it was in response to someone asking a question of whether or not climate change can act to unite the left and right. He called that proposition low resolution thinking. And it is, it's a bromide. He the global warming issue a nightmarish mess and dismisses the idea that it would unite us. Here is the full question, and full response, is on YouTube:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY[/YOUTUBE]

Being skeptical of a body of research is not pseudoscience. He's not skeptical that the planet is warming, nor that humans are the cause for it. He is skeptical about estimates of total warming, which is not a pseudoscientific belief nor is it pseudoscience to doubt a claim.

Calling Peterson a climate denialist is just plain bigotry, in the original sense of being intolerant of people who hold different opinions than you (just to be clear I am not calling you a racist). It is labeling him in a way that is a total mischaracterization, so you can dismiss what he says without listening. It is characteristic of todays hyper-polarized political atmosphere. It does a disservice to yourself, and to those around you.

- - - Updated - - -

blastula said:
He does say stupid stuff about how lobsters relate to humans. When he ventures outside his lane, he flails.
Click to expand...

What's the stupid shit he says about lobsters? I've seen this brought up several times this thread, but only in the most general of terms. Why won't anyone be specific?
 
That lobster behavior and nuerochemistry indicate something scientifically relevant about humans. It's obviously stupid if you've seen any of what he's said. Why are you acting like it's not? Indeed, it's so stupid, even PZ, the partisan hack blogger neurobiologist, can show why. Evolution is just one of several topics Peterson preaches about and is clueless about.

Btw, which members of the "animal behavior / ethological community" are vouching for Peterson and for what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom