Jordan Peterson - Without Religion There's No Art & Poetry (Secular Talk) - General

Well one of the points I "debunked" was raised in this thread the other 2 were in previous threads where the self righteous authors proudly proclaimed "gotcha" over. I preempted these before they were brought up, and no body has bothered to back up their religiously held beliefs thus far, its all the same shit plus a troll. So do you have anything pertinent to the conversation to say or not, if not then next please.

Philosophy is definitely open to peer-review and criticism. It's formed from fundamental axioms and has to be logically sound. Otherwise it's not philosophy, it's spiritualism. Psychology is even more so open to peer-review. It's a science. It's written about in scientific journals. Both are fundamentally based on a history of ideas within a particular field of academic study, good examples are analysed by a wider community of people within that field and are published in journals. And it's not like average facepuncher is looking at scientific journals for the most recent peer reviews, don't kid me. Everything you read about that's scientifically founded was originally published in a peer reviewed journal, you don't need to read each and every publication in order to make sure what you believe is backed by science. The whole field of psychology is like that and especially clinical psychology No, clinical psychologists today don't use jungian/freudian psychoanalysis. Psychology is a science, like quantum physics. They perform experiments, use mathematics and p-values and peer-review just like other scientists. Even philosophy requires core axioms and logic, it needs to be clear and not deliberately obfuscated or vague. The most legit critique I hear is that his views are "vague", which I find is just, but then again, I don't find negative since he's talking about most fundamental things. When people say he's vague, they mean that he deliberately uses manipulative language and leading questions to avoid saying what he actually means. He isn't vague because his concepts are so complex, he's vague because dancing around the topic lets him say something controversial and wrong and then step away from it as soon as someone calls him out on it.

it honestly isnt ironic at all because those are all extremely good, straight up education resources. crash course covers a wide breadth of subjects in many series. scishow is a science news program. pbs space time goes so in depth into astrophysics and quantum mechanics that its often challenging to me, someone who's invested years into physics as a hobby.

I'm really confused here, are you arguing that psychologists don't use science? Or that practicing psychologists that are working in a clinic are not using science? I AM saying that both study things with a scientific method. That's literally all I'm saying. Is that you should base your views on scientific evidence and peer-reviewed sources, not internet celebrities. You're trying so hard to grab gotchas that you aren't even reading what I'm writing.

You latched onto the quantum mechanics comparison but literally everything else he said on the quoted portion is correct. They use statistics and the scientific method to carry out studies based on data and in turn produce conclusions which have a decent probability of being true. I've talked with psychology majors, jung and Freud aren't all that well regarded compared to what's been learned since. I think you're getting the study of clinical psychology as a science confused with the practice of it on patients? Here, I can link you an article where the abstract discusses the relevance of their findings using statistics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735817303276 Boom. Also being wrong and being dismissive about it after accusing someone else of being high and mighty really isn't a good look.

Where did I make this point? Peterson is a scientist. If you disagree with that, then we're out of the scientific realm and it's just subjective opinions. I'm sure I've misread your argument, but I wasn't sure how else to read this statement. Are you saying that providing therapy is like studying quantum particles? No. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. I'm trying to say both medicine and physics use scientific principles. Maybe Froztshock explains it better: Peterson doesn't talk exclusively about Freud and Jung either, does he? What practicing clinical psychologist does in his day-to-day work has almost nothing to do with statistical science and a lot to do with Freud and Jung. Are you a clinical psychologist? I'm pretty certain psychologists do not use Freudian Psychology or Jungian Archetypes today, as they are very outdated models of psychology. Most use some variation of Behaviourism, Cognivism, Developmental Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology or Social Psychology or one of the many other recent developments. That's not to say that Freud or Jung aren't referred to in psychology discussions, it's just that they tend to recognized as quite outdated products of the time they were made. Much in the same way Marx is referred to in political science.

You peeps treat smarts like it's a singular value instead of levels of expertise in many different topics that partially overlap. Just because Peterson has a PhD, doesn't make him a universally smart man or more qualified to speak about things outside of his area of expertise than people who don't have PhDs. If you listen to what he's peddling, none of it is related to psychology except by broad association of "psychology is why people do things". He talks more about religion and eugenics than he does about any actual psychological concepts and my entire experience with psychology comes from vocational school. Jordan Peterson is not a stupid man, he above all others should know what power he's trifling with by openly sharing toxic world views and perpetuating hatred against any and all progressive activism. Whether that is his intention or just a side effect of his desire for having his teachings acknowledged, I can't say for certain. People supporting him aren't stupid either, they exist in a spectrum between genuine ignorance and complete indoctrination but they aren't literally irredeemably stupid because that would be just as dehumanizing.

I'm kinda late here, but I wouldn't be too quick to trust the credentials of Sam Harris.

What does a PhD in a very niche area of clinical psychology (namely addiction studies) have to do with Politics & Philosophy? These 'armchair philosophers' aren't just writing out their own musings, they're trying to tell you that the real academics, who likely have PhD's in those fields, haven't been read by Peterson. Or have been completely misrepresented. Or say he's a hack. You want to run with Authority, so what do the Authorities of these subjects say? The qualified lawyers, who are part of the Canadian Bar Association, are telling you he's spouting nonsense. The scientific community either isn't saying anything, because they aren't concerned with pseudoscience like 'Jungian Archetypes as a Universal Axiom', or they're saying what little venture he makes into their fields is embarrassingly wrong i.e lobsters and dabbling in race science. The qualified Historians are telling you his view of history is bad r.e the Nazis, Philosophy (frankfurt school et al.), and Scientific history (they wrote about DNA in the bible you know!!) Even the Theologians can't work out what the hell he's talking about. (they wrote about DNA in the bible you know!! p.s Jesus maybe or maybe not was resurrected) And for someone who has 'written extensively on totalitarian regimes', Jordan 'the nazis should have just enslaved the Jews' Peterson, yet again comes off like he hasn't got a fucking clue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM Maybe he's great at clinical Psychology. Probably is, you know with his PhD and all. Now why the hell would I ask a mechanic to tend to my garden?

Most arguments FOR JP has been "hes got a PHD you cant argue against that unless you have one" which is beyond stupid. Woo, a man has a PHD in one subject. That much mean hes smart in every single category of study. Oh wait, hes so fucking stupid he said shit like the OP, when there's documented evidence there was art way before any evidence of religion.

if it was in this thread you should've had no problem quoting it and addressing it directly. mind if i ask you link me to it, and the other 2 points you say were brought up?

Yep, those are applied models of behaviorist and cognitivist schools of thought. They are based on scientific analysis and the cognitive and behavioral models developed through the 20th and early 21st century. You have to understand that these practical approaches and working theories are not based on statistical research really but on systematization derived from practice of helping other man or woman to overcome negative emotions. Scientific research involves practical approaches and working theories AND statistics and analysis. You seem to be describing elements of the scientific process but then making a weird distinction between science and this strange blend of 'not science'. The reason I asked whether you had a background in psychology was that you seem to not understand the basis of the scientific method and how it applies to pretty much all of medical practice. Perhaps what you meant what the difference between theoretical and applied science. What is the difference between ' systematization derived from practice of helping other man or woman to overcome negative emotions' and 'do experiments and generate knowledge or design mechanisms.'? Do you know what STEM stands for? Science, Technology, Economics and Medicine. Psychology goes under that Medicine label. I understand that you find this argument tiresome, but is it possible that it is feeling tiresome because I am having to ask the same questions over and over again to overcome the vagueness of your answers? Ironically you accuse me of surface level understanding and yet you don't understand basic concepts of the scientific method and simply list names of therapy treatments without explaining what they are. Frankly, I think you're being far more arrogant and "pretensely enlightened" than I am.

You couldn't help but sneak a personal attack in at the end after going on about people not being polite? Peterson's work absolutely does require the use of statistical analyses and the like. Here's part of one of his data tables from one of his articles: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/241083/33e6e23c-2711-49ef-a4e8-484b4b646f54/image.png Clearly you don't understand the body of Peterson's work. His work is subject to peer review just like everyone else. His non-psychology work is still subject to public scrutiny, especially if he's trying to pass it off as academic. Here's a simple explanation as to why Peterson is not a great philosopher and doesn't deserve all the attention he's getting for such: Philosophers construct arguments, AND care about precisely defining terms and claims. Peterson is intentionally vague in his definitions of his terms and claims. If Peterson is a philosopher, AND intentionally does not define his terms and claims with precision, Peterson has failed to uphold standard good practices of philosophy in his works. If Peterson isn't upholding good practices of philosophy, Peterson is not a good philosopher. You should not fundamentally have to sift through hours and hours of lectures or pages and pages of material to understand precisely what he means when he goes on about postmodernists or other junk. If you can't define things clearly, you're pretty shit at making philosophical arguments. Dismissing criticisms of Peterson's philosophy of being vague displays a failure of understanding of a pretty core aspect of philosophy. His commentary on society shouldn't be exempted from public scrutiny because of his credentials. Smart people can still do a lot of dumb things. Linus Pauling was a genius, and generally good natured person, but he got a little crazy with his vitamin C nonsense at the end of his career. We shouldn't give Pauling a pass because won two Nobel prizes when we're talking about his substandard work on vitamin C. We shouldn't give Peterson a pass when he's making social commentary on Canadian law, ideological conspiracies, or fundamental aspects of society. The dude has openly used his platform to try to marginalize fellow academics and students he has a beef with with blacklists and other shit. Sure, he might have some agreeable points here and there, but there's no sense in idolizing him as many do, and he isn't a good source for things outside of his area of expertise. If you want philosophy with applications to society, try someone like Charles Taylor.

It's incredible to watch what is considered one of the great academics of the right talk about how the Nazis should have enslaved people instead of killing them, as if everyone who has had at least a grade-school level education knows for a fact that they did enslave them and that the Holocaust was directionless mayhem and destruction, interpreted through some "archetypal mark of Cain" nonsense.

hence why explosives made in some jewish slave shops were made without detonators on purpose as a way to rebel silently.

Okay, so you have extensive knowledge of psychology but don't know that an appeal to authority is a fallacy Sure, authority obviously has merit, but "they have authority therefore they're correct and any criticism is automatically wrong if you don't have authority" is not a valid argument.

Here's the *good* appeal to authority: Renowned psychologists say that this person's behaviour was caused/influenced by ... Dr. X studied the vitamin and determined that it had beneficial effects on ... Here's the appeal to authority fallacy (but everyone calls this the appeal to authority which is annoying): Renowned psychologists say that this law will cause ... Michael Jordan says that this vitamin is the best because ...

Just to clarify, Peterson didn't say they never enslaved any Jews. He said that pushing for the death of Jews, as opposed to continuing to use them as slaves, was detrimental to the German war effort.

Neither Sam Harris, nor Brett Weinstein are actually conservatives... They vote democrat, they express tons of views ENTIRELY incomparable with modern conservatism. You're a really smart guy, but you still engage in tribalism as much as anyone else does or can.

Just to clarify, I see no reason to engage in the sort of banal word games that every discussion with you boils down to. Three Arrows demonstrates Jordan Peterson's lack of knowledge regarding Nazi Germany and the Holocaust far better than I could.

I watched Peterson actual lecture where he talks about it.

A simple search would yield results but here ill do it for you. In reference to Bill C16 in this thread Another thread where an out of context clip was used in regards to the "feminists want male domination" Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual And finally here there are posts calling him sexist. https://forum.facepunch.com/f/videos/bssyo/Jordan-Peterson-ContraPoints/1/ That was easy to find you can read through there im not doing all the work for you, if your not satisfied just do some searches its all there. Same points every thread that ultimately fall flat, now we have calls to ban threads with him in it (either positive or negative) and just shut down the conversation entirely. Luckily I don't think this will happen no matter how many snowflakes become enraged, ill be sure to post new JBP threads when videos come out about him from now on.

Have you read C-16? Actually I know that you haven't so here you go. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading It simply adds 'gender identity and expresion' to the list of things organisations cannot discriminate against you for, e.g hiring, housing etc. The list contains these things "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered." and now "gender identity or expression, " Please, have a read. Have a read and find anything to do with compelled speech. Have a read and realise that C16 was just an amendment to an existing law that nobody gave a fuck about because it literally was not a problem. RE the second link, have you watched the vice interview? I'd love your take on it.

poor you, having to do the work that's expected when you want to debate. how can you possibly go on addressing points the way they were actually made, instead of making the opposing arguments yourself so they're super easy to tackle? oh, the humanity. here, what you quoted is that he has "a bullshit understanding of c16" but you addressed it as "he is against C16 therefore he is a transphobe". don't you see the problem with your strawmanning?

Funny how in the second thread you tackled the low hanging fruit and are curiously silent on the stronger arguments made by myself and others against the intellectual honesty of Peterson when speaking of politics and philosophy, which are brought up in almost every single thread and not refuted just the same. By all means, attack the snowflakes and don't question your estimation of the man and his supposed wisdom.

"All points fall flat if I don't acknowledge them" 👉😎👉. That will teach them libtards. God I wish I was as ignorant cool as you.

I have read C16 and obviously there is no problem with having trans people added to the human rights charter, the problem is with the definitions. What constitutes hate speech does miss-gendering someone constitute hate speech? (i'm not talking about being a dick and calling a mtf a man or something) if not then why not? is it different from limiting the words people can use, to force them to use certain ones? if it does constitute hate speech then what happens if you don't believe that made up words like zhe and zir should even exist? what if in your view words like that limit the argument for transgenderism from being a biological one to being at the behest of someones whim? that's not a strong argument. Then there is the case that the law would be abused and used to stifle free speech through "misunderstanding" of the literature, which has happened already. Although to me these misunderstanding of a vague law were all too convenient, the law is too vague and will be abused more. He was right about C16 though? this isn't up for debate and the accounts continue to pile up (and will continue to over time) I didn't straw man at all? I brought up that its one of the main arguments of those that oppose him whislt addressing the fact that the threads follow a similar pattern which was the topic of the conversation. As far as talking to people directly, you haven't brought anything to the table aside from attempting to tie the conversation up in semantics instead of addressing my statements or raising anything new. So far ive only seen low hanging fruit aside from the argument by Zyler who claims that Peterson uses motte and bailey tactics which is actually interesting and I will address next. How will I ever recover.

Just brilliant stuff as I've come to expect from you, zukriuchen. If I may ask a simple question: What makes a person defend Peterson? Is it their low IQ? Their ignorance? Their bigotry? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

Once again, like all lawsuits/charges, you need evidence to prove the motive. I know its hard to process that you need evidence to land your charges in court, but people cant just call the police and sue people just for saying they broke the law. These laws have always been in place, it just added sexual identity as another minority. No one has abused the law and going around saying "just wait till it does get abused" is an absolute shit argument. Why is it a shit argument? because then years from now a single case might pass through the courts and then you can jump around saying i told you so for a single misuse of the general well being of the law. Where are these accounts? So far I've only seen Canadians say it hasn't been abused since it passed a year ago. I mean you keep making all these bold claims with literally no sources to back your shit up. If anything, you're pulling what you said people would do with C-16, accuse something terrible is happening but have nothing to back it up when questioned. I mean people have been posting sources from studies/psychologists/philosophers proving counter points, but so far majority of your accusations are baseless. Then you have the balls to ask THEM for your proof. This isn't how debating works, if you want to prove your point, post your sources that back your claim. Its because Zyler is trying to tell you that his motte and bailey tactic is a logical fallacy, meaning its absolutely worthless in any reasonable level of debating. Any actual philosopher would know this, shit i know this from grade school. Every single argument he does is the same motte and bailey bullshit whenever hes in an debate. To someone who doesn't see or know about this tactic it does look like normal debating. So i'm guessing hes trying to tell you the dude is a quack and really doesn't know how to debate his points correctly without relying on the fallacy. could start by not being a jackass and saying shit like: Luckily I don't think this will happen no matter how many snowflakes become enraged, ill be sure to post new JBP threads when videos come out about him from now on. And actually debate his points isntead of throwing zany bait.

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/159354/0a1e2e7f-3e19-40dd-ac09-686d0fc41b2b/acsdafdsf.png Wow I can't believe the law was actually looked over, analyzed, found to be ok and the definitions & shit can be easily found online. This is wild.