LogFAQs > #896285349

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong.

Once you acknowledge that his citations are irrelevant to what he's talking about, you're left with statements that don't really have truth values.

Are you saying that you want me to show "God must exist because we need a creator" is false? The first part doesn't follow from the second, but I'm not able to prove God doesn't exist.

I gave you a disproof for "Moral systems have to share attributes with axiomatic systems" already.

If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room", it might still be the case that it is "right" to clean your room, but there's just no real content there.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't give his arguments and positions weight by saying that he's an academic/intellectual, and then say that it doesn't matter if those arguments are valid because he's still right.

I didn't know he said "God must exist because we need a creator", if those were indeed his words, then that's definitely something I disagree with him on. But something tells me you're either making that up or misunderstanding something he said, because he's talked at length about belief in god, what it means to believe, what a god actually is. You seem to be painting him into a corner of being your run of the mill Christian, if you were to actually research the subject you'd see that that couldn't be further from the case. Its why I said you're misunderstanding his previous statement where he invoked Godel, and that's why I still disagree with you on that topic.

But aside from the religious aspect for a second, you're kinda jumping around in this post and took a massive leap when you just threw out "If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room"" which is a perfect example of the issue I continue to run into with Peterson detractors. For some reason a lot of people seem to think that if they can prove anything Peterson's said to be false or even just technically inaccurate, that that's all you need to justify completely trashing his philosophy and even question his understanding of psychology as a whole. This is what happens when you try to assess someone's work when you have an agenda. You grasp for the first debatable line you can find and then cling to it, building up its importance, claiming that it is the cornerstone of the entire argument and no further discussion is necessary. Its why you see people here doing some deep research on lobsters after Peterson mentioned them, they just get tunnel vision and don't realize that they're nitpicking a line that's tangential at best.

And I really don't understand the end of your post, I haven't claimed anything about Peterson or said any of the things you posted, all I've done is ask for someone to show me what convinced them that Peterson was a fraud or a phony and not worth listening to. I mean the dude has been a professor at Harvard and University of Toronto, so its one thing to claim that the guy just doesn't resonate with you or say anything that interests you, but the Peterson haters here obviously have to push everything to the extreme and make these absurd accusations, and I really am just trying to understand what it is that makes people not like him. From my own observations, a lot of it seems to be misinformation. I've seen him accused of being a transphobe, blaming women for sexual harassment, being part of the alt right, lol hell I've even see someone claim that he argued men should be allowed to beat women. None of that is even close to true.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.