I think my contention is the implication of saying something is irrational and lacks evidence. Usually it is implied there is no value and/or it is false. Or even that hyper rationality is preferable, which i am starting to disagree with.
You can say that people can experience positive benefits from following narratives which are not true. If evidenced, it is true that this happens. The narrative remains untrue. Perhaps someone is inspired by the bravery and honest of Harry Potter?
-
-
Joe Rogan gave a good example. Believing that porcupines can throw their spines could prevent people from getting close to porcupines and reduce risk of accidentally touching it and injuring self. There is a benefit to believing that. It doesn't become true.
-
If ancient people believed that God said that seafood was unclean, they avoided food poisoning in times when this was not understood. That belief was beneficial. There is still no reason to think God exists or said that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That makes sense, it seems honestly that we are missing a word for pragmatic truths foundbin narratives. Or maybe I am just unaware of how to articulate this idea. Thanks for the responses making me think a lot.
-
We call it pragmatic notions of truth!
-
This is the disagreement about truth between Peterson and the sceptics. His is pragmatic, theirs is evidence-based.
-
Yep and as a practicing clinician I see the immense value of Peterson's idea and the harm scientific truth claims can be. I am definitely bias from my experiences and the amount of terrible science and science reporting.
-
The problem with pragmatics is that they are used to support a person's own desired outcome. Science can get things wrong but is less likely to than anything else. And it's science which proves Itself wrong.
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.