"So anyways, long before we were practicing science, we were doing perfectly well - in sense without any real knowledge of the objective world at all. Or at least not any scientific knowledge of the objective world. And so another thing that you might observe about that is that you can survive perfectly well without knowing any science at all in an articulated and developed manner, and of course animals are in that catagory. So that also I think in some sense undermines the claim of science to anything approaching a universal truth because obviously life can get along perfectly well without it."
Is he dumb enough to be say that because Animals don't use science; the scientific laws we've discovered don't apply universally?
>Is he dumb enough to be say that >capital A in animal >uses semicolon to seem smarter than he is >flag
If he doesn't capitalize it, his wife gets filled with Emu sperm as punishment.
Science is fatal
>taking the Emu juice >punishment
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Psychology
PhD in Clinical Psychology
Talks about science like he knows anything
FRAUD LOSER IDIOT
They have a smuggie about faggots like you. Disregard your retard hero ramblings of utter stupidity and attack 2 tiny mistakes Sad fucking life for you Peterson Parrot fuccbois That's for sure Also, Portuguese is the native language in Brazil. He's done very very well in English >Sssss-ss-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-sort yourself you fucking tranny faggot parrot fuccboi
>pic related; retard fraud professor talking out his asshole like the moron he really is
No, but you're dumb enough to hear it anyway.
there's nothing wrong with what he said. you're just a brainlet and can't understand the deeper meaning since you've got autism and can't understand esoteric topics
scientific laws don't universally apply because scientific method only proves something works in specific setting which is exactly not universal. science isn't an ethical, moral system, or even a guide on how to structure society.
there's nothing in science that suggest you need to not kill yourself or life has any purpose. since science has nothing to do with meaning or purpose in life then it isn't used to explain it
The Ted pill
someone ban this faggit already
>leaf >condescends like he's a human being that is somehow superior to anyone
>Also, Portuguese is the native language in Brazil. He's done very very well in English
His flag was Australia so either you're retarded or you're the same person using a proxy.
Tag team shilling on behalf of Peterson This happens in every thread that questions him
Nothing but kike talk too. >Paragraphs of insults
And no, literally humans are dirty smelly bacteria ridden animals that need science or they get very sick and die. The life expectancy of people 100 years ago was 2/3rds of what it is now.
Stick to talking bullshit you fucking fraud hoax "prof"
This leaf makes Peterson hit threads every 4 or so hours. Fucking weird cunt aye. Rake now.
>This happens in every thread that questions him
This happens in every thread I create to rag on him.
Ya wtf.......................... Peterson must be fucking with my Matrix cause I'm unraveling his suppositions.
Check IDs dipshit Check Flags dipsit Not (my) thread right now
Are you that dumb dipshit??
The stupidity of you Peterson faggots is off the charts. Seriously No wonder you think a rambling canadian is smart.
>Pretending he doesn't know what a proxy is. Confirmed proxy shill.
You forgot to change your ip.
REMINDER >REMINDER I never thought a leaf could be this autistic
>Thinks I'd waste money on a proxy tool to lurk Sup Forums >confirmed autist >only autistic faggots use VPN >Professor Peterson says so
(you) are some butt blasted Peterson cock chokers
No, he's saying scientific truth is not universally the truth necessary to live and function in the world.
Even used the same images, what a lazy faggot.
Well it depends on what would you call >perfectly well
If living like an animal entices you, then yeah, you don't need science, technology or civilization, people are animals and can survive like animals.
He's right. Are you retarded?
He's not saying Science is a bad thing at all, it's just an extension and a development.
God damn it...
jesus, this retard.
>you don't need science, technology or civilization Civilization and technological development existed for millenia before we developed the scientific method.
Karl Popper was already talking about this half a century ago.
What is your response to this? Why do you make so many posts about Peterson? Why are you so enraged about him?
just google Jordan Peterson Lane or Jordan Peterson Qaiser
I see what he is saying. I think he is just talking about a lot of these faggy science worshiping fruits who don't know anything themselves.
"That Bill Nye is such a super genius!!!1! SCIENCE!1"
This is why I made a distinction. You don't need any of those to just survive as an animal.
No, the point is you don't need knowledge of scientific truth to have technology and civilisation
The scientific method is just a textbook version of whats been happening before the term was coined. Progress in technology was ALWAYS made by repeatable applications determined from observation and measurement.
Maybe he's just saying we don't need to put so much faith in science.
Especially when it comes to morality, and how we should structure society. Those questions, of course, can't be answered by science.
actually it is, but only when you have the products of science all around you. anyone who thinks otherwise is retarded. IT's like saying we don't need to all eat food because very few of us are farmers, so we can get along well without farming just fine. someone else has paid your debt to needing to know science shit for you, and we pay him to do it. without that, we'd be back in the medieval period again.
they certainly can be enhanced by science though, not that you fucking conservacucks will ever understand this.
>So anyways, long before we were practicing science, we were doing perfectly well
That is one of the most retarded statements ever made, by an overhyped, pseudo-intellectual, fucking leaf. What the fuck is he even talking about. Humans have always, always been violent histronic tards, and have the thinking scientists to thank that we're not living in caves.
His army of autistic tipping 19 year olds can all go die too. Fuck every one of you spaz cunts.
We literally didn't have the scientific method until a few hundred years ago. For hundreds of years we thought velocity required the constant application of force. Life went on. Scientific knowledge is extreamly advantageous, but it's not necessary.
Being able to repeat something doesn't tell you how it works. Knowing that things fall isn't scientific knowledge, but knowing that things fall because of the force of gravity is.
That isn't the point. Nice bait though.
Scientists didn't exist before the scientific method. They are literally defined by it.
>"So anyways, long before we were practicing science, we were doing perfectly well - in sense without any real knowledge of the objective world at all. Or at least not any scientific knowledge of the objective world. And so another thing that you might observe about that is that you can survive perfectly well without knowing any science at all in an articulated and developed manner, and of course animals are in that catagory. So that also I think in some sense undermines the claim of science to anything approaching a universal truth because obviously life can get along perfectly well without it."
...and yet, animals are still pulled by the pull of gravity at the same rate as science can predict. They still lose heat or gain it at the rate science can predict. They still are subject to all the physical laws science has worked hard to define.
That's what universal truth is, it applies universally... but Peterson seems to think that the animals have to agree with our version of the truth in order for it to be universal. He is very mixed up. It's like he's trapped inside the concept of subjectivity.
>We literally didn't have the scientific method until a few hundred years ago. For hundreds of years we thought velocity required the constant application of force. Life went on. Scientific knowledge is extreamly advantageous, but it's not necessary.
We've had the scientific method since we developed sapience. The scientific method is the way you observe natural phenomena.
Literally since the days of Ugg finding fire and putting his hand in it to touch it.
Science is not this monolith of procedures and empiricism. It's just way of understanding the world through observations and experiments.
Knowing that things fall but believing its gravity isnt scientific either
Even if early humans didn't know it, they were using science to live. Even if it was mostly just trial and error
He meant that people were more assertive and lived better more meaningful lives before we started 'knowing' stuff.
Not a single feminist gives a shit about biology, but they act as if biology is not undermining their arguments 100% of the time.
Interesting. When exactly was the scientific method devised, in your opinion?
>all the uneducated faggots in this thread who are unfamiliar with Pragmatism
A scientific understanding is not the way humans think. It may be right but it depends on the computer in the human brain. Which was not designed to run on scientific rationalism. It's like running an emulation on a computer. Religion is like a program that runs natively on the human brain. Scientific rationalism needs to be emulated and even if it is, it's still using the native instruction set so we get things like cults of science, abuses of science, because we deny the underlying limits of the human brain.
religion as we know it does not 'run natively' on the brain God does
IT TURNS OFF THE COMPUTER OR ELSE IT GETS THE RAKE AGAIN
I think his basic point is "people bring the scientific mindset - that there is an objective truth to things - to moral debates, and arguments of opinion, but they shouldn't, because those things don't have definite and objective answers".
Here are some quotes to justify that, if you want to read them.
13:44 in the video:
>You can make pretty damn solid truth claims from within a scientific perspective. Now the problem is it's a lot harder to do that within a moral perspective, and there's all sorts of reasons for that.
And a few seconds later from that:
>You're listening to two people who know each other very well, maybe a husband and wife, discuss their last argument. And you might say, well, you might think, well let's get to the bottom of this. Let's find out what this argument is about. And you might think, if you were scientifically inclined, that it is in fact about *something*. Which means that if you investigate it long enough, you could actually figure out what the facts are. But I actually don't believe that's true.
I think he is not explaining the point as best he could, but I think it is a good point.
Read just the first sentence I said here:
>actually it is, but only when you have the products of science all around you
How is it necessary to our survival to know how to split atoms and cause an explosion that could wipe out massive swaths of people, or the entire species? How is it better for survival to know how to create both a vaccine for a virus, and also create an unbeatable super-virus which will wipe out everyone, than to know nothing of either and lose a large percentage of your population, but still survive as a species?
>we don't need to all eat food because very few of us are farmers
False equivalence, and you know it.
>always been violent histronic [sic] tards
Now with power to annihilate the entire species...thanks to science.
Why can't fedora tipping pussy faggot pseudo intellectual pop-science regurgitating cocksuckers face the fact that, fundamentally, all science has done is murder human meaning and give rise to Nihilism, while also giving us the means of worldwide suicide?
>We've had the scientific method since we developed sapience. The scientific method is the way you observe natural phenomena. No, the scientific method is a formal process that is the most optimal method we've found to understand why and how things happen. People used to think we could completely understand the world simply by reasoning, without actual observation.
My point is that the scientific method it's more than repeatedly watching something happen.
Earliest back I'd go is Rodger Bacon, who was in the 13th century.
so youre saying that r/athiest faggotry isnt the path to true happiness?
but redditors seem so successful and well-adjusted!
SCIENCE can't make ANY moral claims.
I'm sorry, but you're the retard. >the truth necessary to live and function in the world You think this was not happening for all of man's pre-history and history up until the last few hundred year. Those who failed to live and function actually produced those who invented science. It's great, but don't pretend babies come into the world and we teach them science to live in it. It's a type of process and a particular philosophical worldview, that is definitely not universally necessary.
First, you can't live life in any practical sense if you only accept a scientific standard for truth or knowledge. If you're engaging in an epistemelogical thought exercise or something that's one thing. But the vast majority of life occurs outside science, and the notion that only science can come to Truth is quite a stretch.
Some other anons have pointed out that people often define down science into something way too simple. Science is a specific method of inquiry that humans invented, and that has serious limitations in terms of what it can know and what kinds of phenomena it can even approach to begin with.
This user gets it, for example.
Science can not be the universal standard for everything, it's not designed for that and it works really poorly for that. If you want to say capital-T Truth depends on scientific validation, then we are swimming in a giant ocean of Unknown with a very very tiny raft of actual knowledge, and that is absurd. There is plenty we can know without science.
>No, the scientific method is a formal process that is the most optimal method we've found to understand why and how things happen. People used to think we could completely understand the world simply by reasoning, without actual observation. It's very useful for establishing facts about the objective world, about nature, yes.
But Peterson's claim is that it isn't useful for answering moral questions, or questions of opinion either. At 13:44 in the video he says this:
>You can make pretty damn solid truth claims from within a scientific perspective. Now the problem is it's a lot harder to do that from within a moral perspective, and there's all sorts of reasons for that.
I don't think he explains his point that great, but yes, I think he's essentially saying "science is great, but it has led people to believe that political debates, moral questions, and questions of opinion can be answered in an *objective* fashion, where there is *one single correct answer*; and that's stupid, because such questions don't have objective answers".
You have to understand that Peterson adheres to a Pragmatist definition of truth. If an belief helps you survive, it's true.
He seems to hold this definition because it would seem to follow from evolution; why would a finite, evolved creature have a capacity for truth beyond what's necessary to survive?
His failure is because he presumes that there is something special or unexplainable about life. When in reality it's not supernatural at all. We are not special. Animals are not special. We are the product of a chaotic, indifferent universe, and we follow the same laws as everything else in this universe.
The bloody Marxists probably thought they had scientifically "solved" morality. It was no joke.
>Science can not be the universal standard for everything, it's not designed for that and it works really poorly for that. If you want to say capital-T Truth depends on scientific validation, then we are swimming in a giant ocean of Unknown with a very very tiny raft of actual knowledge, and that is absurd. There is plenty we can know without science. I think that it *can* be the universal standard for answering questions that have an objective answer. Questions about the nature of... well, nature.
But it *can't* answer:
- Political debates (what should we do as a society) - Moral questions (how should one act) - Questions of opinion/subjectivity (whether certain music is good, etc.)
I think Peterson has correctly identified that some people think that you CAN answer those questions scientifically. They say "reducing carbon emissions IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE, BECAUSE SCIENCE"
There's two sides to the debate though; the other would point out that trying to eliminate carbon entirely will put people out of jobs, it will destroy certain industries, even when other countries are engaging in these industries. Basically I think that he thinks it is wrong to approach these sorts of subjective questions from a scientific perspective, assuming that there is a single correct answer.
>I have a fetish for science It's just a tool you moron, its not going to answer fundamental questions about human life
Animals do science according to that definition of learning from trial and error. That's just called learning I think.
No you misunderstand him. He is essentially just saying that subjective questions - political questions, moral questions, questions of opinion - can't be answered by science. And people shouldn't pretend that they can.
>His failure is because he presumes that there is something special or unexplainable about life. That's not true at all.
>We are not special. Laat I checked we're the only species capable of building castles, let alone splitting the atom.
>he presumes that there is something special or unexplainable about life That's not a failure user
But we now know that's a dangerous way to be for reasons I should hope I don't have to explain
get a job man
>life expectancy meme
Doesn't he mean instinct and cohesion can exist without a scientific method to do so.
No scientist taught me cohesion, humility etc, all the virtue items were useful but when I use them, shit tends to go well.
It's probably what he means by the focus on the idea and conceptual being of 'Christ', or the Christ state of mind, I would doubt entirely that he's religious at all but I get what he's saying and what humanity probably means by the concept of Christ.
On the other hand, as a species, we have decided to contribute a perplexingly substantial amount of energy to abstract thought processes, and subsequently costly physical experimentation, for some reason.
I'd say that reason is because we have experienced a proportionately substantial benefit therefrom. Otherwise natural selection would have surely eliminated those exhibiting excessive, and supposedly wasteful, inquisitiveness.
I'd argue the human condition (basic needs) is slated to decay into a mere vestigial artifact of our existence, but only if we can manage to sort ourselves out.
No. He is saying that science is rigorous but it doesn't properly address the human mind and human social needs.
While religion and culture are pre-scientific technologies which focus on meeting human social needs. Therefore religion and culture have value.
He also argues that humans are not blank slates and we have genetic and epigenic behaviors which are innate and not a product of nurture.
It's your fault for being triggered by a rational statement. He said a very simple thing. Do you want me to put it in another way? science is not theology
It's also how science is used and taught. Even Einstein's theories and equations aren't completely correct, but we still teach Newtonian physics because they're true enough for the average person. Likewise science technically runs on assumptions that can't be made according to logic, since no matter how much something happened one way in the past, it could always happen differently in the future. Nevertheless, the process works far better than what we had before, so it's good enough.
this is a simple philosophical assertion you degenerate philistines
>modern scientistic attitude - we've explained everything >nothing special about life Life is special in many ways. It is a category of matter that has its own agency and ability to reproduce. Conscious awareness is another special property only belonging to life. Objective truths as such only exist in our minds, as they are ideas. It would be shorter to list ways that life is similar to all other matter probably.
We also have higher cognition and can cultivate the ability to choose how to respond to our instincts and emotions which is pretty special
He's saying that scientific understanding is not a prerequisite of survivability when it comes to natural selection and, as individuals of this god awful species are aware of this, the search for understanding is undermined by this as these individuals would rather stick their appendages in one another than trying to uncover a universal truth. It's actually the reason why not all people are scientists or, if you want to take it to a more profound level, why the vast, vast majority of humans do not function on a purely logical level and, instead, exhibit some sort of illogical belief. Why the fuck do you think burger mcburgerton wants to ban the theory of evolution from public schools? They function perfectly acceptable without it. They live, they fuck, they die, all regardless of what the universal truth is.
Enh, he's off exploring the consequences of the Nietzschean / Darwinist idea of truth that he went to the mat for in the first Sam Harris discussion, that what's true is what's good for the species. He takes it a little far imo, why does he find it so interesting?
Maybe because it makes room for false beliefs like religion, that are nevertheless probably good for humanity (some, not all). An ok idea to toy with, but not worth dissing the Descartesian (objective, external reality) conception of truth for.
If he's right and we do need to drink it more deeply, how would we go about it, what would we do? Force everyone to listen to mythic teachings? Everyone to go to church? That's be kind of totalitarian, gnome sayin'?
Sort ourselves out, and become a beacon for others to live. Reach a finger out into society and hopefully influence it for the better Green pill everyone
>this mad >not a single argument in the whole post
Sort yourself out
Those are good thoughts, and it is anti- the way Marxists try to use 'science', I just wish he wouldn't try to jam all that meaning into an existing concept, Truth.
Science: these are the laws of science and they do not change (unless we find out they wrong lol XD) Rupert sheldrake: fuck yo dogma nigga
Sorry to ask you then but, why? Because HItler killing Jews and Russians, and Stalin killing kulaks were practical? Well in the long term maybe not. Maybe it's a matter of your smarts, your time horizon, your knowledge of history. Too short = bad.
I was just trying to say that science is the best standard we have for the things it's designed to investigate. Basically, I think we are in agreement.
Just want to say I appreciate everyone in these threads they really help me expand my system of viewing things and my knowledge of different ways of thinking. This thread and the ones like these are fucking great. Unfiltered and moderated discussion of different viewpoints. Fuck the leaf though, every godamn thread.
>Laat I checked we're the only species capable of building castles
False - apes have been found to do this too.
Look everybody it's this loser again.
Whoops I forgot my image.
it looks like you could dig your way trough it with a shovel.
someone post that qt picture with peterson having his arm around the weirdo manlet with the maga cap and the pepe sign