@HeerJeet this goes rather abruptly from “this scholar has a mistaken idea of myth as unchanging that renders his conclusions flawed” to “he is a musty fraud.”
-
-
If your authority rests on a claim to expertise, and the expert opinion of your peers thinks your frame of reference is fundamentally flawed, “musty fraud” isn’t a stretch
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Exactly.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
“the expert opinion of your peers”—lol
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Yes, his peers being other people who have worked extensively on his topics of expertise - myths and archetypes - and who are qualified to evaluate his claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
You believe they are of a singular “opinion” and it is that he’s a fraud? Who granted him tenure and published his peer-reviewed articles? Who cited those articles in their own work? Who hired him at Harvard? The answer is, his peers.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This analogy might help: Linus Pauling did great peer-reviewed chemistry for which he won Nobel. He also had quack views on vitamins. The validity of the chemistry does not make his quack vitamin opinions truer.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
That analogy might have advanced a conversation in which you had accused Peterson of being a quack; instead you concluded that he is a fraud
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Here is a helpful exercise: take that video of Peterson telling students that art of ancient peoples intuited DNA molecule & show it to 1) historians 2) archeologists 3) biologists. See what they think of it.
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
I'm a biologist and I gotta say my expertise doesn't really come into play here. But my non expert opinion is JBP seems like a nutjob, in his public persona at least.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Well, my question for biologist is, is it plausible that ancient peoples could have intuition of DNA molecule structure or is that something that requires modern science & technology.
-
-
Seems...unlikely. Chemists and physicists didn't even arrive at a common view on the atom until the early 20th century; there was a lot of disagreement then among biologists about what molecules were the medium of heredity (many thought it was protein)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SababaUSA @HeerJeet and
Franklin, Wilkins, Watson, and Crick couldn't have intuited it without then-cutting edge x-ray crystallography. But I don't imagine any of this—that ancient peoples didn't get organic chemistry—is news
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
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.