3 ms·
Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in? You can claim he giving
by secretsatan 5y ago
Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in?
You can claim he giving another side to the "Mainstream media", but does he give in depth interviews with scientists who are little more than quotes in the media? or is he more focused on giving the "Other side"
Eg, he just had that idiot Peterson spouting climate rubbish, has he had credible climate scientists on his show?
- IAmNotAFix 5y agoHe has had Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, for what it's worth.
- johnmorrison 5y agoPeterson's claims about climate objectively match leading science. You may disagree with him, but what he says is not rubbish. (For credibility, see the studies included in IPCC reports.)
- Flankk 5y agoJordan Peterson is a world-renowned Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, and bestselling author. He has published over 100 scientific papers. You make a great point about him being an idiot.
- ourmandave 5y agoWhat makes a clinical psychologist qualified to speak about climate science? It's like a heart surgeon claiming architects have building design all wrong.
- Flankk 5y agoWhat makes you qualified to criticize a scientist? It's called freedom of speech. The difference is you don't have anything interesting to say.
- ourmandave 5y agoWould a climate scientist going on JRE and saying Peterson is all wrong about psychology be interesting?
- sfotm 5y agoIf they have salient points that stand up to rigor, then yeah? This is pretty much an appeal-to-authority argument, isn't it? FWIW, I have no context on the specific claims made by Peterson, but I've increasingly seen a line of logic that suggests you need to have a PhD in a topic in order to think critically about it.
- ourmandave 5y agoA better analogy would be sending The Weather Channel guy to cite a bunch of sketchy papers on psychology that Peterson is all wrong.
- sfotm 5y agoNot sure what analogy I made, but in this case, you can weigh how much you want to consider either opinion: Sample Weather Channel Guy: - No history in psychology - Citing papers that are not highly respected under peer review Sample Psychologist: - Has a long history in the field - Ideally has references available for their own claim In this case, you'd probably want to err on the side of trusting the second person in the chart. What didn't happen, though, was a complete dismissal of the first person's claim based on credentials alone. If you have to make a decision on something quickly and authority is the only way for you to judge it, then sure, go for it. But appeal-to-authority doesn't belong in open-ended debates.