No, it's not truth and there is no evidence. Emotionally resonant narratives are important to us and they are how we consistently think about morality and psychology and emotion and relationships. But they are not true. Bible stories are not true. Jungian archetypes are not true.
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.