Jordan Peterson

[Chose]

Err, no. That was my point. You can convert near any opinions into hypotheses. It doesn't conveniently nullify moral objections people might have about stating certain opinions.

I agree that the testability of an opinion doesn't nullify a moral objection to it. But what do you mean by "near any opinion"? Opinions that rest on empirical data are pretty much the least interesting opinions out there. If I can simply gather some data on the topic to get my answer, then I have little interest in anyone's opinion on the matter. Ultimately the most important things we believe rest on our intuitions and values that are simply outside the scope of science, in principle. There is also another huge category of opinions that cannot be reasonably or reliably tested.

 

[Berzerker]

In a recent misadventure with a county department I demanded to see a supervisor, and immediately launched out of my chair to pace like a caged animal until they arrived. No blatant threat of a criminal nature, but also no question that when the supervisor got there and took in the situation at a glance I was going to get my way, which I did. And my business partner can now go there whenever needed and he will be served with an alacrity rooted in "if we don't get this done the other guy may come back." This works because just by virtue of size and voice I bring an unspoken physical threat to every conversation, and I know how to leverage it.

well, bully for you

 

[Timsup2nothin]

well, bully for you

Indeed. I feel absolutely no remorse about it either. County bureaucracy is chock full of people who were bullied as kids and think their position holding a rubber stamp is their chance to get even. Bullying them back is a public service.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thirty pages in and nobody has given reason to believe that Peterson is anything more than a right-wing Zizek, without any of the latter's entertaining mannerisms or occasional insights.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thirty pages in and nobody has given reason to believe that Peterson is anything more than a right-wing Zizek, without any of the latter's entertaining mannerisms or occasional insights.

TBH, Zizek almost never is entertaining. Though sometimes he is, eg:

 

[Broken_Erika]

TBH, Zizek almost never is entertaining. Though sometimes he is, eg:

That still-frame makes him look like Mark Hamill...

 

[inthesomeday]

That still-frame makes him look like Mark Hamill...

I’ve never seen them in the same room...

 

[Chose]

Thirty pages in and nobody has given reason to believe that Peterson is anything more than a right-wing Zizek, without any of the latter's entertaining mannerisms or occasional insights.

Providing that wasn't ever the purpose of this thread. There hasn't been that much discussion of Peterson at all, with the exception of a few heavily biased articles and videos highlighting the worst aspect of him. I think there is plenty of insight in the following video which would be of benefit to plenty of people on this forum:

 

[Arwon]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810162542160920576

Yeah this guy is a big ole genius intellectual heavyweight

 

[Traitorfish]

Providing that wasn't ever the purpose of this thread.

Well, the purpose of the thread, per the OP, was to establish whether Peterson is a fraud or just comes across as a fraud. I was trying to be charitable enough to allow that there might be something more to him.

 

[Broken_Erika]

View attachment 492233

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/810162542160920576

Yeah this guy is a big ole genius intellectual heavyweight

Well, Feces is heavier than grey-matter...i think...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Err, no. That was my point. You can convert near any opinion into hypothesis. It doesn't conveniently nullify moral objections people might have about stating certain opinions.

That depends on the outcome of testing said hypothesis. There are no moral objections to making a conclusion based on the evidence. There might be some to the type of testing done.

Simply making one and not testing it tells us nothing.

Here is Swarte-Pete with the quote itself:

What was the context of that quote? One would perceive that differently if he means "fight" in the military sense vs civilian fisticuffs over a disagreement.

Regardless, "under any circumstances" is a very strong qualifier. It includes "person did or threatens to do something horrible", "person is using physical violence themselves already", and any other circumstance you can conceive happening, otherwise the phrase "any circumstances whatsoever" is false.

Ultimately the most important things we believe rest on our intuitions and values that are simply outside the scope of science, in principle.

No. Such a stance is straight up either amoral or immoral when beliefs conflict with empirical data. The context of this thread makes an unpopular assertion that is testable with empirical data. The outcome of testing that is >> anybody's feelings about it. Even if one doesn't find it interesting. Even if it conflicts with beliefs not based on evidence.

Tim pointed out that the proposition is likely to be shown inaccurate if tested. I consider that reasonable and would expect strong evidence before concluding otherwise. However, assuming we have reliable data it trumps any of that from any coherent moral perspective.

 

[Chose]

Well, the purpose of the thread, per the OP, was to establish whether Peterson is a fraud or just comes across as a fraud. I was trying to be charitable enough to allow that there might be something more to him.

That isn't actually being charitiable to Peterson though. You are being quite charitable to the OP, which was two paragraphs of essentially rambling followed by a link to a crappy Peterson video, and a claim by @Kyriakos that he could tell, by the way Peterson spoke, what his IQ actually was.

 

[stinkubus]

@TheMeInTeam by what empirical evidence or deductive reasoning have you reckoned that a belief held without any evidence to support it is always immoral? That's a pretty big point that you are expecting everyone else to simply concede to you.

 

[Lexicus]

No. Such a stance is straight up either amoral or immoral when beliefs conflict with empirical data. The context of this thread makes an unpopular assertion that is testable with empirical data. The outcome of testing that is >> anybody's feelings about it. Even if one doesn't find it interesting. Even if it conflicts with beliefs not based on evidence.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Good luck proving or disproving that with evidence. Yet it's clearly a far more important belief than anything within the purview of science.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TheMeInTeam by what empirical evidence or deductive reasoning have you reckoned that a belief held without any evidence to support it is always immoral? That's a pretty big point that you are expecting everyone else to simply concede to you.

I said amoral or immoral. Beliefs founded outside reality are not necessarily harmful, but there's no credible reason to assign them any moral value whatsoever over any other arbitrary belief without evidence.

Yet it's clearly a far more important belief than anything within the purview of science.

No, it isn't. Part of it is, unfortunately, objectively wrong (all human beings throughout the world are not presently born equal with regards to rights). That part of the assertion is falsifiable and falsified.

 

[stinkubus]

I said amoral or immoral. Beliefs founded outside reality are not necessarily harmful, but there's no credible reason to assign them any moral value whatsoever over any other arbitrary belief without evidence.

You not being able to find a reason to assign beliefs not grounded in empirical evidence any moral value is far from proof. You are still asking us to concede a point for which you have provided no empirical evidence.

Many persons engage in charitable activities due to their religious convictions. These convictions cannot be demonstrated to be true by use of empirical evidence, but they result in a moral good, anyway. So there's a nice, neat counterexample.

 

[Chose]

I said amoral or immoral. Beliefs founded outside reality are not necessarily harmful, but there's no credible reason to assign them any moral value whatsoever over any other arbitrary belief without evidence.

The belief that "We should be kind to each-other" is not based on any scientific evidence. You seem to be saying that there is no reason to assign higher moral value to that belief than, let's say, "We should kill people we don't like", because they are outside the realm of science.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Those are really more guiding principles than beliefs in the sense TheMeInTeam was talking about.

 

[Lexicus]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is

Part of it is, unfortunately, objectively wrong (all human beings throughout the world are not presently born equal with regards to rights). That part of the assertion is falsifiable and falsified.

Google "natural rights" dude