Claire is a total fraud. Exactly what she claims to dislike. She blocked me for arguing, and winning an argument against her friend and fellow fraud @HPluckrose . I still like Quillette but this is why they say don’t meet people you admire. They’ll let you down.
They are a mixed bunch but I think the New Atheists are much more likely to be critical of it for valid reasons - epistemology, rather than the 'Neo-Marxism' cobblers, but then these are my people.
-
-
The diversity of thought it’s evident, especially of you read the NYT article. But that doesn’t negate the idea that most of them have been explicitly against POMO. I know Harris, Peterson, & virtually every scientist in that group is.
-
I don't disagree with you about that. I just think they have different reasons for being so and that matters. Peterson & Harris don't have the same problem with it. eg,https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/917921688381263877 …
-
And Peterson is a Jungian psychologist. If that is a scientist, it is a very different kind to a neuroscientist.
-
That’s fair. Would you say that Harris reasons is epistemological (which I’m sympathetic to) and Peterson’s is (political)?
-
Yes, very much so. Harris' epistemology is Newtonian and Peterson's is Darwinian. Because the latter is pragmatic, it has much more in common with the kind of motivated reasoning found in the branches of activism he criticises.
-
I thought with Peterson, the main political issue (outside of free speech) was about feminism (the idea that sex/gender essentialism in non-existent)
-
Yes, but because both feminist social constructivism and Peterson's narrative constructivism are pragmatic, they both seek to find what suits their narratives & explain it with overarching, moralistic metanarratives.
-
That is spot certainly spot on
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

