Jordan Peterson interview on C4

markodaly wrote: »

The last words of a zealot fundamentalist.

You wanna argue with a thermometer work away lol.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He's precise in his speech, [..]

No, he asserts that he is -- or more precisely, preaches that should be. In practice, he's anything but.

Case in point, his recent RTE interview, during the space of which he used "enforced" variously to mean "not enforced", and to mean "enforced".

Very often it's classic bait-and-switch. Or motte-and-bailey, if you prefer the cod-medievalist term. Made a hyperbolic claim. When challenged on it, resort to sputtering outrage, and defending some far weaker version of if, citing "obviously I meant", "it's a well-known technical term", and other such blather.

Much like Trump's mendacity being excused by his apologists as "metaphor". Or I suppose like the BrExit bus. Who cares if it's a lie, if it gets people onto your talking point, and appeals to their prejudices, then job done.

Probably why he falls out with Sam Harris -- though I'm not fan of his, either -- with his "let us first redefine 'truth'" stunt.

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't know if you're doing that just to annoy him but I though it was perfectly clear that he meant the theory that climate change was man made.

No, I wasn't trying to annoy anyone. No, it wasn't at all clear.

markodaly wrote: »

Listen to yourself for a minute, spouting nonsense on this thread.
How does one thermometer prove man-made climate change?

You're having a laugh now. I'll give you the same advice I gave Peterson. Educate yourself about a topic before commenting on it in public otherwise one will look very foolish.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, he asserts that he is -- or more precisely, preaches that should be. In practice, he's anything but.

Case in point, his recent RTE interview, during the space of which he used "enforced" variously to mean "not enforced", and to mean "enforced".

Very often it's classic bait-and-switch. Or motte-and-bailey, if you prefer the cod-medievalist term. Made a hyperbolic claim. When challenged on it, resort to sputtering outrage, and defending some far weaker version of if, citing "obviously I meant", "it's a well-known technical term", and other such blather.

Much like Trump's mendacity being excused by his apologists as "metaphor". Or I suppose like the BrExit bus. Who cares if it's a lie, if it gets people onto your talking point, and appeals to their prejudices, then job done.

Probably why he falls out with Sam Harris -- though I'm not fan of his, either -- with his "let us first redefine 'truth'" stunt.

A well written post, but flawed at its core as the subject he was talking about (enforced monogamy) is an anthropological term for the way in which groups or cultures enforce monogamy through social practice.

People just heard "enforced monogamy" and assumed relationships at gunpoint. It shows ignorance on the side of his detractors, especially when the wrong idea is propagated heavily through the media and only serves to further polarize those who like him and those that don't.

Also, people just want reasons to attack him.

Anyone who listens to him long enough knows that he gives an answer he believes to be true and then goes into the reasoning behind his assessment, but again the idea that people are not okay with the fact he knows he isn't 100% about his answers are just used to being lied to, everybody should have the humility to realize that complex issues are want to changes as the human understanding evolves.

20Cent wrote: »

It's the listeners fault for thinking that when peterson says enforced monogamy he meant enforced monogamy.

Agreed, they should have actually listened to what he said, or, had a better understanding as to what "enforced monogamy" actually means.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Most of the loudest voices who believe in the man made theory of climate change have no idea about climate science. What's your point?

You don't have to be an expert to believe expert opinion.

On the other hand, if you think you know better than the experts, then you'd better have some knowledge to back that up or else you're no different to the clown who re-wires his own house and burns to death in a house fire.

kunst nugget wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8

This is an interesting discussion between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty - their conversation is the first hour with a Q&A for the last forty minutes.

interesting in that asserts that it's impossible to quit smoking without supernatural intervention, and then he goes on to totally misrepresent studies on people using psilocybin and later quitting smoking.

It really shows how 'precise' he is in his language when he takes distorted interpretations of scientific studies as proof that humans are incapable of breaking an addiction without a supernatural intervention

He's a charlatan.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, so this is pretty unrelated to the rest of the thread, but all the same I'll just say that there is still debate to be had.

Climate science is notoriously tricky, and reliable data gets more and more sparse the further back you go. Getting reliable readings for temperature in Europe in the 17th century is tricky, and that's 5 minutes ago in human history.

I'd say that the greatest threat that humans pose to the climate is by inadvertently threatening the environment of plankton. As these are the single most important source of photosynthesis on the planet, a decline in their number could be devastating (never mind the other impacts of something at the bottom of the food chain being adversely affected can have).

That we're threatening the oceans is probably true, not not definite, and what measure we could and should take to rectify this aren't clear, so you could say, it's debatable.

There are plenty of debates in science, even in 'settled science' there are debatable questions over competing mechanisms and hypothesis

When people say the debate is over, it's not that there are no uncertainties left, it is only referring to the debate over whether humans are the main cause and the role greenhouse gasses are having in the warming of our planet.

There is enormous uncertainty over what level of climate change we may cause, and what the consequences of that warming will be. This is not a good thing, we would much prefer to know what to expect so we can begin preparing for it, but there are lots of interactions in the biosphere that we can not predict with any certainty. It depends on the timing and sequence of events, and when certain tipping points are reached

What we do know with a very high degree of certainty is that we are on a very dangerous path that is time critical, the faster we act to get to a carbon neutral global economy, the less damage we will do, so when we have influential people like Jordan Peterson encouraging his supporters to deny climate change, it's so disheartening and it's genuinely harmful

Peterson has about 1300000 followers on youtube, and they're mostly young, and mostly active on the internet and tend to spread their views evangelically. That's a big troll army to have going around spreading more misinformation about climate change

Akrasia wrote: »

interesting in that asserts that it's impossible to quit smoking without supernatural intervention, and then he goes on to totally misrepresent studies on people using psilocybin and later quitting smoking.

It really shows how 'precise' he is in his language when he takes distorted interpretations of scientific studies as proof that humans are incapable of breaking an addiction without a supernatural intervention

He's a charlatan.

Are you misquoting him on purpose, or are the points he makes beyond you?

Do you understand what he means by the supernatural?

I think he is precise in his speech, but like the "enforced monogamy" argument, he was assuming he wasn't talking to toddlers.

Akrasia wrote: »

There are plenty of debates in science, even in 'settled science' there are debatable questions over competing mechanisms and hypothesis

When people say the debate is over, it's not that there are no uncertainties left, it is only referring to the debate over whether humans are the main cause and the role greenhouse gasses are having in the warming of our planet.

As you yourself point out, that itself is uncertain, despite it being a reasonable conjecture. However regardless of whether CO2 emissions from human industry is a major factor in global warming, it certainly has local negative consequences making its reduction an important goal for scientific endeavor.

Akrasia wrote: »

What we do know with a very high degree of certainty is that we are on a very dangerous path that is time critical, the faster we act to get to a carbon neutral global economy, the less damage we will do, so when we have influential people like Jordan Peterson encouraging his supporters to deny climate change, it's so disheartening and it's genuinely harmful

There will always be people who say the Earth is flat, always people who say we never visited the moon, that extraterrestrial contact has been covered up by the government, and so on. These people are generally considered crackpots, but are allowed say whatever they like, on whatever platform they choose. You could argue that they threaten scientific enterprise or whatever, but in practice they are harmless.

They mightn't be a harmless minority if there was a concerted effort to shut them up though. Quite honestly my reaction to someone saying 'you mustnt ask that question' is to reply 'Why not? What are you hiding?'. Many people are of the same inclination.

There is a propensity for people to be motivated by a noble goal, and to do things that are perhaps not entirely noble to further that goal. The Earth will eventually meet its doom by its oceans being boiled away. That is certain. Humans are also seriously damaging the biosphere. That is also certain. Efforts to mitigate these two things can only be good, right?

Not necessarily. First off it depends whether these efforts actually do good, rather than harm. Second it depends whether they have any meaningful effect either way. If it turned out that a wind or tidal power solution consumed more energy than it produced, or the industrial processes involved in their creation damaged the environment, it would nonetheless be very difficult to criticize these developments because of the idea that the sentiment is all that matters.

At the moment there's very, very little atmospheric carbon dioxide, though it is without doubt increasing, and it is doubtless that the main cause of this increase is due to human industry (agriculture, manufacturing, transportation). Just as a side note, agriculture predominantly produces methane rather than CO2, but methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.

Healthy and open debate and discussion about these things should be welcomed. At the moment it seems to be more a case of virtue signalling by western countries, rather than an attempt at making significant global differences. Electrification of vehicles, the use of nuclear power, and (apparently!) adding garlic to the diets of cattle would be ways in which Ireland could massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But what Ireland does in terms of global emissions doesn't matter at all in the long run. If China doesn't cut emissions, then all bets are off. China produces as much CO2 as the USA, the EU and India combined. COMBINED.

I think that complaining about Jordan Peterson sharing this video is just part of the same pointless posturing that is sound without action.

I'm reading through his book at the moment and there's a paragraph on how he doesn't count anyone as truly atheist as they've grown up in a culture/society that's been shaped by religion. Can't say I agree with him on that not making you an atheist, but I see where he's coming from in an abstract way.

A good post.

I think the majority of people who don't like him just don't understand the points he's trying to make.

It doesn't mean his points are correct, in the same way that most other philosophers weren't necessarily correct. Its all up to interpretation.

A few people read a few articles on the Guardian about him that goes against their fundamental beliefs and rather than give him a small amount of their attention, they look for ways in which they can denounce him so they don't have to question their said beliefs.

kubjones wrote: »

A well written post, but flawed at its core as the subject he was talking about (enforced monogamy) is an anthropological term for the way in which groups or cultures enforce monogamy through social practice.

Except it's not a term used widely. Monagamy is commonly referred to, 'enforced monagamy' isn't. Marriage might be 'enforced' by law (which means there are legal protections for the rights of married couples, and legal requirements for the dissolution of marriage, but in almost no modern society is monogamy actually legally enforced. It is voluntary, marriage is voluntary, remaining married to ones partner is voluntary everywhere divorce is available (almost everywhere)

People just heard "enforced monogamy" and assumed relationships at gunpoint. It shows ignorance on the side of his detractors, especially when the wrong idea is propagated heavily through the media and only serves to further polarize those who like him and those that don't.

Enforced means non voluntary. When someone says enforced participation in any activity, it means that the person has no choice. If peterson is 'precise' in his words, he couldn't have been less clear in his choice of words.

Also, people just want reasons to attack him.

Anyone who listens to him long enough knows that he gives an answer he believes to be true and then goes into the reasoning behind his assessment, but again the idea that people are not okay with the fact he knows he isn't 100% about his answers are just used to being lied to, everybody should have the humility to realize that complex issues are want to changes as the human understanding evolves.

He's not a rigorous thinker. He shoots his mouth off and then backtracks when people point out how silly or inconsistent his points are.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As you yourself point out, that itself is uncertain, despite it being a reasonable conjecture. However regardless of whether CO2 emissions from human industry is a major factor in global warming, it certainly has local negative consequences making its reduction an important goal for scientific endeavor.



There will always be people who say the Earth is flat, always people who say we never visited the moon, that extraterrestrial contact has been covered up by the government, and so on. These people are generally considered crackpots, but are allowed say whatever they like, on whatever platform they choose. You could argue that they threaten scientific enterprise or whatever, but in practice they are harmless.

They mightn't be a harmless minority if there was a concerted effort to shut them up though. Quite honestly my reaction to someone saying 'you mustnt ask that question' is to reply 'Why not? What are you hiding?'. Many people are of the same inclination.

There is a propensity for people to be motivated by a noble goal, and to do things that are perhaps not entirely noble to further that goal. The Earth will eventually meet its doom by its oceans being boiled away. That is certain. Humans are also seriously damaging the biosphere. That is also certain. Efforts to mitigate these two things can only be good, right?

Not necessarily. First off it depends whether these efforts actually do good, rather than harm. Second it depends whether they have any meaningful effect either way. If it turned out that a wind or tidal power solution consumed more energy than it produced, or the industrial processes involved in their creation damaged the environment, it would nonetheless be very difficult to criticize these developments because of the idea that the sentiment is all that matters.

At the moment there's very, very little atmospheric carbon dioxide, though it is without doubt increasing, and it is doubtless that the main cause of this increase is due to human industry (agriculture, manufacturing, transportation). Just as a side note, agriculture predominantly produces methane rather than CO2, but methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.

Healthy and open debate and discussion about these things should be welcomed. At the moment it seems to be more a case of virtue signalling by western countries, rather than an attempt at making significant global differences. Electrification of vehicles, the use of nuclear power, and (apparently!) adding garlic to the diets of cattle would be ways in which Ireland could massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But what Ireland does in terms of global emissions doesn't matter at all in the long run. If China doesn't cut emissions, then all bets are off. China produces as much CO2 as the USA, the EU and India combined. COMBINED.

I think that complaining about Jordan Peterson sharing this video is just part of the same pointless posturing that is sound without action.

I get angry whenever any celebrity uses his/her fame to promote pseudo science. And Climate change denial is the most dangerous of all the anti scientific movements out there. Everything else is temporary, delays to action on climate change will have long term consequences for generations to come, and for the mass extinction of countless species of plants and animals.

And while Ireland isn't a big greenhouse gas source on our own, we are part of the EU, so under that block, we are a major part of the problem just like Oklahoma might not produce much greenhouse gasses, but the USA does, or Yunnan Province in China is small on its own, but as part of China, it's big.

Global climate change requires every administrative level doing it's part from local government, right up to global blocks of nations.

Policy changes are required, and these will only be deployed once public sentiment supports action on climate change. As long as there is climate change denial, politicial action will be slow because there will be organised resistence to any measures strong enough to be effective.

I agree with you that the efforts to mitigate climate change need to be science and evidence based, but we largely already know what the first steps need to be. There are lots of people working on mitigation and adaptation projects, it's an entire IPCC working group. We should accept their recommendations without having back seat 'skeptics' spreading conspiracy theories about how they're all motivated by greed instead of the need to address climate change.