Considering how much this differs from pretty much every other discussion and talk he's given, I believe that Sam legitimately challenged him and Peterson misstated his own beliefs. The transcendence and truth of mathematics factors into his other arguments.
-
-
-
He kept trying to explain the Pragmatist meaning of truth, which is in such linguistic contradiction with Sam's that they couldn't get anywhere with it. I think that's JP's mistake.. It's also unrepresentative of his views and the argument generally.
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.