3 ms·

> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny <x> No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, y

> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny <x> No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.

chernevik 5y ago
Good point. I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.
- aeternum 5y ago
  Yes exactly, too late to edit but thanks for the clarification.
teachrdan 5y ago
> Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true. Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?"[1] > By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. It's not clear to me if you personally believe this statement or if it's a reference to irrational conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/1... https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-science-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-...
- steelstraw 5y ago
  If you watch that episode, Joe pushes back a bunch of times and even pulls up Google for a fact check. It's just that Joe is polite with his guests and that seems to confuse people who are used to Twitter style dunking. Is that what people are looking for? Should he kick off his guests and yell at them? Or put them on guide rails? I don't think so. He has friendly conversations and disagrees in a polite way. Also Jordan is being mischaracterized somewhat. You have to watch the whole explanation and ignore repackaged soundbites. He was (inartfully and perhaps incorrectly) challenging the accuracy of predictive models, which is a fair thing to do. It's not the end of the world. He can challenge it and others can present the counter argument. Plus it's important to recognize that he's on the side of the environment. He argues (and I agree with him) that the best way to improve the environment is to bring people out of poverty, which enables people to think and strategize over longer time frames, not being so focused on their next meal or paying the bills. I believe he is correct about this larger point.
- aeternum 5y ago
  Personally, I lost a lot of respect for Peterson over that quote/interview. Clearly all models are simplifications, that's the entire point. We can't simulate reality with full fidelity, anything more than a hydrogen atom requires a simplification. Hearing Peterson directly say something non-sensical like that is an incredibly effective way to convince reasonable people that he is wrong. Much more effective than any attempt to cancel or silence him.
feoren 5y ago
What really happened during the Holocaust? Let's call the truth theory A. Some people, who don't actually really care what happened during the Holocaust and seek to argue in bad faith, would love to see "equal time" be given to theory A and their own "theory", B. But we can take it further. Let's give equal time to each of theories A, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, ... B327 (ancient Egyptian mummies coming back for revenge against the Jews), B328 (an early prototype of their space laser malfunctioned), etc. Now A gets 1% of the time and crazy gets 99% of the time. Decide for yourself what's true!

chernevik 5y ago

Good point. I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.

aeternum 5y ago
Yes exactly, too late to edit but thanks for the clarification.

teachrdan 5y ago

> Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true. Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?"[1] > By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. It's not clear to me if you personally believe this statement or if it's a reference to irrational conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/1... https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-climate-science-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-...

steelstraw 5y ago
If you watch that episode, Joe pushes back a bunch of times and even pulls up Google for a fact check. It's just that Joe is polite with his guests and that seems to confuse people who are used to Twitter style dunking. Is that what people are looking for? Should he kick off his guests and yell at them? Or put them on guide rails? I don't think so. He has friendly conversations and disagrees in a polite way. Also Jordan is being mischaracterized somewhat. You have to watch the whole explanation and ignore repackaged soundbites. He was (inartfully and perhaps incorrectly) challenging the accuracy of predictive models, which is a fair thing to do. It's not the end of the world. He can challenge it and others can present the counter argument. Plus it's important to recognize that he's on the side of the environment. He argues (and I agree with him) that the best way to improve the environment is to bring people out of poverty, which enables people to think and strategize over longer time frames, not being so focused on their next meal or paying the bills. I believe he is correct about this larger point.
aeternum 5y ago
Personally, I lost a lot of respect for Peterson over that quote/interview. Clearly all models are simplifications, that's the entire point. We can't simulate reality with full fidelity, anything more than a hydrogen atom requires a simplification. Hearing Peterson directly say something non-sensical like that is an incredibly effective way to convince reasonable people that he is wrong. Much more effective than any attempt to cancel or silence him.

feoren 5y ago

What really happened during the Holocaust? Let's call the truth theory A. Some people, who don't actually really care what happened during the Holocaust and seek to argue in bad faith, would love to see "equal time" be given to theory A and their own "theory", B. But we can take it further. Let's give equal time to each of theories A, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, ... B327 (ancient Egyptian mummies coming back for revenge against the Jews), B328 (an early prototype of their space laser malfunctioned), etc. Now A gets 1% of the time and crazy gets 99% of the time. Decide for yourself what's true!