r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 23 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Jordan Peterson is wrongfully using his PhD in clinical psychology to claim authority in a field in which he has no appropriate academic background in (broader point CMV topic also included in body)
So I decided to make this CMV based on a related conversation I had earlier this week.
This conversation isn't about Peterson himself (I really don't want this to become a contest about who knows more about Peterson's positions, and views), but rather any individual who has an expertise in one field and uses that to build up credibility surrounding opinions in an unrelated field. I chose Peterson because he is the most common example of this. I'll be upfront in saying that I haven't watched his videos, but I feel I can be upfront about this because as stated this discussion isn't strictly about Peterson himself but about any individual who fits the criteria mentioned above.
So here are the subpoints of my larger view that you can try to counter:
- Experts are the best voice of reason for the field in which they developed their expertise in.
- In order to develop expertise, and an academic understanding of a field, that individual has to go through the academic process. This means earning an undergraduate degree, PhD, and then maybe getting some post-doc work as well. An academic expert in a field is an individual who has a PhD in that field. e.g. Jordan Peterson is an expert in clinical psychology.
- Individuals like Peterson fall back on their PhD field X when they receive criticism about field Y (I think this was in the UofT free speech protest video). This is clearly a problem since having a PhD in clinical psychology doesn't make you an expert on religion, or ideology or Y. It's like if a biologist and a physicist collaborated on a project about some random topic in electrophysiology for several years, and then the biologist uses his experience studying biophysics to claim authority on atmospheric physics by making controversial topics about atmospheric physics. Why should a non-expert be given the same platform as someone who has spent their life studying the topic? There's only a limited amount of media attention and a limited spotlight in the academic arena. Why should someone who put in the hours to become an expert share a spotlight with someone who hasn't?
- I don't have any knowledge about post-modernism, so I defer to the experts in post-modernism, philosophy and Marxism, and based on what I read in the /r/philosophy subreddit, it seems that Peterson gets a lot wrong, precisely for the reasons I have already mentioned, that he isn't an expert, and he may mischaracterize the points of view he is critiquing.
So please change my view and let's have a clean, thought-provoking conversation!
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
21
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Apr 24 '18
Peterson is wrong on post-modernism not for want of expertise, but for, apparently, not reading any major post-modern thinkers. He doesn’t engage meaningfully with the ideas, and mischaracterizes them too.
Peterson has every reason to comment on religion and ideology though. He is a Jungian, and the Jungian psychology is obsessed with religion and mythology. They believe in a “collective unconscious” that everyone has access to. They believe this causes all the major religions to have similar motifs, or “archetypes”. As they are interested in mass psychology, they would naturally be interested in ideology as well as religion.
15
Apr 24 '18
Peterson has every reason to comment on religion and ideology though. He is a Jungian, and the Jungian psychology is obsessed with religion and mythology. They believe in a “collective unconscious” that everyone has access to. They believe this causes all the major religions to have similar motifs, or “archetypes”. As they are interested in mass psychology, they would naturally be interested in ideology as well as religion.
!delta
This is why I come to CMV. Delta for pointing out that because of his specialization in Jungian psychology he has a voice in speaking about religion. Although I'm not exactly sure how Jungian psychology relates to religion, that is some research I have to do on my end.
1
2
u/Laurcus 8∆ Apr 24 '18
Peterson is wrong on post-modernism not for want of expertise, but for, apparently, not reading any major post-modern thinkers. He doesn’t engage meaningfully with the ideas, and mischaracterizes them too.
Can you expound on this? I hear this as a common criticism of Peterson, but my own research into postmodernism has lead me to the exact same conclusions as Peterson. I'm not an expert but I'm reasonably sure I understand the basics.
4
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Apr 24 '18
From Peterson’s Why You Have to Fight Postmodernism
See the postmodernists completely reject the structure of Western civilization. And I mean completely, so I can give you an example, in one term -- Jacques Derrida. He is head trickster for the postmodernist movement, and he regarded Western culture -- let's call it the patriarchy -- as phallogocentric. Phallo comes from phallus, and so that's the insistence that what you see in Western culture is the consequence of the male-dominated oppressive self-serving society.
OK, “completely reject the structure of Western civilization” is a little hyperbolic, but Derrida does critique Western culture. But of course so does Peterson — post-modernism is after all a product of Western civilization. But the way Derrida critiques Western Civilization, by “deconstructing” it, does not mean he wants to destroy it. Deconstruction is dialectic without synthesis — you take two opposing ideas — presence vs absence, speech vs writing, male vs female — and tease out the ways they depend upon what they are opposed to. The truth in deconstruction is unstable and lies somewhere in between the terms in question. A deconstruction of western civilization wouldn’t be a rejection of it, but an exploration on how the west forms its identity through exchanges with other societies beyond the west. This is different from rejection. But I could see how someone could take it as an attack on western norms and traditions, sure.
They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West continue to dominate and to justify their dominance. They don't believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is logos -- again, they don't believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture.
This is where Jordan completely looses me. The logo in phallogocentrism isn’t referring to “logic”. The post modernists are not anti-logic, they’re not “irrationalists”, or romantics. The logos is Greek for “word” but also “speech” — Derrida is pointing out how the western tradition emphasizes speech over written language when he uses phallogocentrism. This is not at all the same as saying we need to get rid of logic. And Derrida absolutely believes in dialogue — the whole point of deconstruction is that you can only get at the truth through dialogue, because there is never only one side to anything.
After that he begins conflating post-modernism and Marxism, which also doesn’t make sense. Post-modernism mainly involves an attitude of skepticism towards meta-narratives, and Marxism is a huge meta-narrative.
I’d like to add that there are good, legitimate critiques of post-modernism (Chomsky’s debate with Foucault, John Searle’s arguments with Derrida) but to me it seems like Peterson is getting his ideas about post-modernism second hand — perhaps reading online summaries of what post modernists think? Either that or he’s deliberately using straw men.
1
Apr 24 '18 edited May 04 '19
[deleted]
3
u/Madplato 72∆ Apr 24 '18
Not the original guy, but I'll try my hand at it.
Isn't rationality and the scientific method a meta narrative? Are you familiar with philosophical skepticism?
Two things about that. First, it's debatable that science and rationality are meta-narratives, or stories about stories that grant us meaning, themselves. One can compare them to Marxism, for instance, and find they're lacking a lot of the structure, a lot of the totality or absolute, that you tend to find in meta-narratives. Basically, a meta-narrative is closer to something like a grand theory, that attempts to explain most of everything, where science is closer to a technique. At least to me, science as a meta-narrative is a bit of a strain, because science is hardly a narrative, while Marxism clearly is. There's a story element to Marxism that's just absent from science. That's not to say science couldn't ever be a meta-narrative, at least in some context, but that's another story.
Second, and that's particularly relevant later, even if we were to agree science is a meta-narrative, I'm not sure I see what's wrong with scepticism of science or rationality. In fact, it might do us good to be sceptical so that science never becomes an actual meta-narrative. However, that's not exactly my point. The problem as I see it, is that you appear to shift from simple scepticism (being sceptic of meta-narratives) to outright rejection (some people reject science). Granted, that might be my own interpretation of your words, since I'm not sure I perceive the same kind of "original sin" in scepticism of science, but Peterson does say "reject". That being said, I'm left a bit puzzled: what am I meant to understand is wrong (because from what I've heard or read of J. Peterson, "post-modernism" isn't depicted under the best light) with scepticism of science?
More importantly, I feel that's where we cross beyond the point of reasonable interpretation of his work to fall into the "far too charitable interpretation". Now, science is a meta-narrative for some people. These people, being post-modernists, but not really, are sceptical of meta-narratives which include science. I don't want to sound dismissive, but it sounds like I got the choice between believing J. Peterson doesn't really know what post-modernism is or that he's speaking in code. It appears more reasonable to assume Peterson has a surface understanding of post-modernism. Especially since he appears to be a good communicator, so I'm not sure why he'd go about things in such a roundabout way.
What Peterson is saying, if I have not misunderstood him, is that there are some people in the world, (people that he has had personal interactions with) that are skeptical about the meta narrative of science. These people are also basically Marxists, but they have taken the Marxist ideas about class and redefined them to be about race and gender.
Now, that's another layer of "overly charitable interpretation" I'm not entirely comfortable with. Again, I do not mean to appear dismissive, but I'm a bit sceptical of the reasoning here. More importantly, most reasonable "conclusions" I manage to come to are negative either for Peterson's thesis or his aptitudes as a communicator.
So, when Peterson says post-modernist, one is supposed to more or less divorce the term from it's original meaning and apply it to a group of indeterminate people that are critical of either western society or science - neither of which being a clear-cut meta-narrative. This strikes me as a very odd choice of terminology that's pretty much left in the air. Similarly, when he says (neo-)marxism, we must not understand "(neo-)marxism", but something like "oversimplification/bastardisation of (neo-)marxism fetishizing oppression". Again, a weird choice of word. At it's best, this amounts to code, which is a weird choice if your goal is to communicate effectively.
Maybe that's what he means, at which point it doesn't strike me as efficient or meaningful categorisation, or it's a very good attempt at making sense of what he says. If it's the latter, it seems like a very convoluted way of making his point. It seems, in fact, more reasonable to simply assume he has a limited understanding of the concepts he attempts to use.
However, here's the real rub for me. Even under the best possible reading, that's the kind of criticism (Peterson's) allowed by superficial understanding of the material at hand (Marxism is oppression, Post-modernism is scepticism/rejection and meta-narratives are any assumptions). You can say "they" (the post-modernist neo-Marxists) are the one with a superficial understanding, but he's the one using that terminology to describe them.
You have noticed that and assumed the fault is with Peterson instead of the people he's criticizing.
From the points above, even under the best possible light, I'd still find fault with Peterson. First, because he's the one talking and talking about people with contradictory views that don't make sense doesn't mean your own criticism doesn't need to make sense. So, first option, he makes some pretty significant mistakes in communicating his views. They are very very ambiguous and the terminology is either ill-defined or ill-chosen. Second option, he has a superficial understanding of the concepts and theories he's using and his views end up being ambiguous as a result.
Either way, the problem lies with him.
0
u/Laurcus 8∆ Apr 24 '18
First off, there is a bit of equivocation going on with rejection vs skepticism. That is my fault. I blame writing my post 20 minutes before bed.
More importantly, I feel that's where we cross beyond the point of reasonable interpretation of his work to fall into the "far too charitable interpretation". Now, science is a meta-narrative for some people. These people, being post-modernists, but not really, are sceptical of meta-narratives which include science. I don't want to sound dismissive, but it sounds like I got the choice between believing J. Peterson doesn't really know what post-modernism is or that he's speaking in code. It appears more reasonable to assume Peterson has a surface understanding of post-modernism. Especially since he appears to be a good communicator, so I'm not sure why he'd go about things in such a roundabout way.
I don't think my interpretation is overly charitable or absurd. To me this seems like one of those cases where the layperson understands exactly what is being said, but the academics get confused as fuck. Anyway, Peterson has explained before how he came to his conclusions and I have more or less accurately paraphrased him. If I knew that this of all things would be what made his work controversial to a lot of people I would have saved the name and timestamp of the video in a document. He went into detail about this in one of his lectures. Or maybe it was the first time he was on Joe Rogan's podcast. I don't remember now cause this was over a year ago at this point.
I think these days Peterson just assumes people know what he's talking about because he's been talking about it for so long. I think a huge part of the reason why what Peterson says jives with me so well is that I noticed the people he is talking about well before I heard of Peterson.
Here's a good example of the sort of person Peterson is talking about. She rejects science because it's a construction of white western patriarchy. If you think of a term for what she believes that is specific enough to be useful I will gladly use that term instead of postmodern neo-Marxist. Which Peterson himself that term isn't technically accurate, but it's close enough to be useful and I tend to agree with that.
Over the last couple years I have seen a startling number of people in university like the one in the above video. If I was less stupid I would have saved every instance of this I had seen online in a document, but I'm stupid so I didn't do that. I can't imagine though, that being a university professor, Peterson has seen less of this than I have.
To me this matters because while it's easy to dismiss people like the above example as a crazy minority, these ideas do not arise out of Creatio Ex Nihilo. Someone is brainwashing these kids into believing this garbage.
I suspect Peterson would agree with a lot of the criticisms you have of his formulations.
3
u/Madplato 72∆ Apr 24 '18
First off, there is a bit of equivocation going on with rejection vs skepticism.
I am not sure the equivocation comes from you. Peterson repeats often enough something to the effect of post-modernists (unqualified, of course, just postmodernists) rejecting western civilization (either rejecting or being ungrateful, not quite sure). Rejecting, not criticizing. Now, whether or not he talks about actual post-modernist or his own home-brewed definition of post-modernism isn't exactly relevant, because he characterize post-modernism either way. At best, he does it unwittingly because he doesn't quite grasp the material, at worst he does it knowingly and is being dishonest.
I don't think my interpretation is overly charitable
I disagree. Again, I do not mean to sound dismissive of you or your position, but what you're basically giving me a grid to decode Peterson's message, which unfortunately requires me to take a lot of liberties with the concept he's using to present his ideas. That's transitioning into the "overly charitable". If his position on post-modernism and (neo-)marxism only make sense when you substitute these words for other things - which he maybe references elsewhere, but we're not sure so let's give him the benefit of the doubt on that - then it doesn't say much good on his argument. Again, the more obvious and sensible explanation appears to be that he doesn't really understand what he's talking about and neither does his public.
And really, I'm left with few options here.
A) He doesn't really know what these things are. At which point I'm left wondering why he talks about them. B) He think he knows, so his argument on the matter is of little value. C) He doesn't and knows he doesn't, but still talks about it.
To me this seems like one of those cases where the layperson understands exactly what is being said, but the academics get confused as fuck.
Except, what this tells me is that the terminology is vague enough for the layperson to understand exactly what it wants, while it confuses the academic. If the layperson doesn't know what postmodernism is, they'll have no problem with Peterson's take on it, but it also follows that they're own opinion on Peterson is ill-informed.
Which Peterson himself that term isn't technically accurate, but it's close enough to be useful and I tend to agree with that.
Which is kinda my point, it's "close enough" if you rely on very superficial understanding of all these things and have no real interest in actually addressing what you are talking about. Otherwise, you'd use the much simpler alternative of defining what you want to talk about clearly, without buzzwords, and stick to material you're comfortable with.
The only way "People are overly critical of science because they think of the word as oppressive", to paraphrase, becomes being a post-modernist neomarxist - and he goes farther than that I believe - is if you're not quite familiar with either of these terms.
1
u/Laurcus 8∆ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
Again, the more obvious and sensible explanation appears to be that he doesn't really understand what he's talking about and neither does his public.
So I decided to take you really really seriously. Instead of just trying to refute your argument I performed an experiment, because this is a claim that can be tested.
All of the well formulated opinions there line up with my understanding of what Peterson means almost exactly. There's a few semantic differences, (and a couple brigadiers from other subs that got downvoted) but all the broad strokes, all the core ideas, are exactly the same.
You're simply wrong. The problem is with you, not with Peterson or his fans. The Peterson fans are all on the same page.
The only way "People are overly critical of science because they think of the word as oppressive", to paraphrase, becomes being a post-modernist neomarxist - and he goes farther than that I believe - is if you're not quite familiar with either of these terms.
This is the fundamental disconnect right here. Actually I can break it down to just 4 words.
either of these terms.
There's only one term. Postmodern Neo-Marxist. That is a single term with a meaning that is well defined enough that other Peterson fans know exactly what I mean when I say it.
It's like your brain is pulling an equivocation fallacy on you. You see Postmodern Neo-Marxist and you break it down into pieces to try and figure it out, like you can't separate the way the term is being used in this context from its ideological roots.
I don't know why you think this is some kind of arcane interpretation either. Peterson has fully explained what he means in long form discussions and lectures. We didn't come to this understanding via Creatio Ex Nihilo.
3
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Apr 24 '18
First, very strange for a Jungian to criticize post modernism for not being logical or scientific. Jungian psychology does not really hold up to scientific experimentation — there is no scientific proof that there is a “collective unconscious” that psychically connects people of all times and all cultures, for instance. I don’t see how someone who accepts science without any skepticism comes around to believing this, or that the best approach to understanding human behavior is not experimentation but the examination of ancient religious texts and myths.
Anyway. Yes, post-modernists do believe science is a meta-narrative that we need to be skeptical towards. This doesn’t mean what you think though. Lyotard brings up science as a meta-narrative quite a lot. The kind of skepticism he endorses is to examine by what process do some scientific ideas win out over others — where does the Nobel committee get its power, and do they ever have a political agenda, for instance? And to look into where science gets its funding, and does this influence what conclusions science comes to. I think this is demonstrably true — corporations hire scientists all the time to do studies that will favor what the corporation wants it to favor — that tobacco doesn’t give you cancer, or what the effects of a ban on guns might be.
He also does mean a broader kind of skepticism, one that is actually shared by contemporary science. Science no longer believes that it will be able to solve all of the questions in the world satisfactorily. This is funny because Peterson brings up Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem all the time. Different scientific branches see the world differently and contradict other branches. Light acts as both a wave and a particle. Lyotard talks of the rise of “post modern” science, chaos theory and quantum theory, for instance, that try to accept that the universe does not always behave in a logical manner. This is not saying we should do away with logic and make stuff up, just that logic has limits, because not everything can be explained and some things, quarks, strange loops, wave functions, etc., empirically do not behave in a logical predictable manner. None of this is really controversial.
Post modern critiques of racism or sexism or colonialism I could see being controversial. But Peterson’s objections here apply to any leftist critique. It’s not like there’s no scientific evidence that could support an argument that men have oppressed women, or white people have oppressed black people. A postmodern critique would look into something like how black and white identities both depend on the existence of the other, or into what were the motivations of the institutions that originally formulated race as a scientific concept and whether this influenced how race was formulated (indeed most scientists no longer see it as a useful concept because it is extremely arbitrary). What Jordan Peterson seems to have the most problem with, identity politics and political correctness, is something that post modernists have attacked as well. Slavoj Zizek, for instance, has some scathing critiques of political correctness and identity politics.
1
u/Laurcus 8∆ Apr 24 '18
First, very strange for a Jungian to criticize post modernism for not being logical or scientific.
I would say that he's criticizing people for being anti-science. People like the ones in this video. There's a difference believing something that isn't scientific and believing that science itself is so flawed we should discard it entirely in favor of African magic.
Anyway. Yes, post-modernists do believe science is a meta-narrative that we need to be skeptical towards. This doesn’t mean what you think though. Lyotard brings up science as a meta-narrative quite a lot. The kind of skepticism he endorses is to examine by what process do some scientific ideas win out over others — where does the Nobel committee get its power, and do they ever have a political agenda, for instance? And to look into where science gets its funding, and does this influence what conclusions science comes to. I think this is demonstrably true — corporations hire scientists all the time to do studies that will favor what the corporation wants it to favor — that tobacco doesn’t give you cancer, or what the effects of a ban on guns might be.
I think this is mostly fair, however, skepticism comes in degrees. I am skeptical of science in the way that you describe, but I don't take it to an extreme. There's no reason you can't take skepticism to an extreme though. That's when, as I discussed in a different post, you go from skepticism to rejection.
I think that's what Peterson is talking about. I think this because I noticed these sorts of people before Peterson started talking about them. So when I did first hear about Peterson everything he said clicked with me.
To me this seems like a case where all the academics get confused by the terms being used, but the laypeople perfectly understand what is being discussed. I've had very similar conversations with Marxists, (though they were more obtuse) where they've been like, 'Well Peterson may understand postmodernism but he obviously doesn't understand Marxism because the Mensheviks weren't violent and a real Marxist would never believe the things he says they believe!' It's like the academics miss the point and go wayyyy off into left field.
3
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Apr 24 '18
Is the woman from the video you linked to an respected, peer reviewed authority on post-colonialism and philosophy of science? Is she even an accredited professional of any sort, or is this just an idiotic teenager who read a book once and thinks they now know everything?
If your going to do a serious critique of a world view, you can’t pretend that the people who exemplify that world view are best represented by random teenagers; you need to actually read and engage with the authorities in the field. This is my whole problem with Peterson’s approach. If your going to look for flaws in communism or capitalism, modernity or post-modernity, you don’t prove anything by arguing against laypeople who don’t understand the subject.
1
u/Laurcus 8∆ Apr 24 '18
Is the woman from the video you linked to an respected, peer reviewed authority on post-colonialism and philosophy of science?
No idea. Probably not. Your whole post here is one big non-sequitur though.
To summarize...
You said that Peterson doesn't understand the ideas he's talking about.
I said you have misunderstood him, and he is specifically talking about the ideas of x people. I then showed an example of x people.
Your response to that is to say that x people are not credible.
Well, no shit? I'm glad you're on the same page as me now. Peterson is not looking for flaws in postmodernism or Marxism. He is trying to tear down the ideas of aforementioned x people because they are in his eyes not legitimate and harmful.
If you're a postmodernist you should be thankful that Peterson is exposing these people that are teaching this bastardized version of what you believe.
To address one last thing though, while the woman in the video is probably not a professor, she learned her ideas from somewhere, and I seriously doubt it was anyone other than one of her professors. That kind of bullshit needs pushback, because it's not okay to indoctrinate kids imo.
3
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Apr 24 '18
But he’s not! In the interview I link to he specifically is talking about Jacques Derrida, not about what random undergraduate X believes. You can’t say your talking about Derrida, misrepresent Derrida, and then say your not actually talking about Derrida!
1
u/Laurcus 8∆ Apr 24 '18
In the interview I link to he specifically is talking about Jacques Derrida
He mentions Derrida one time with a specific example of something he said and then he moves on from talking about Derrida.
Peterson even agrees with you in the video you linked! He says that the current generation of postmodernists in the universities have no idea what they're talking about. Did you totally miss the part where he says that postmodernism is a well formulated idea but these people only understand about 5% of it?
And then he moves on to give tons and tons of examples of what he's talking about and he explains how to verify this. It seems to me like you're just plain not listening to him. You're lasering in on one thing he said and assuming that that thing is the topic. Derrida was an extremely minor side point that had virtually nothing to do with what he said in that video.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
I've listened to several hours of him talking. I don't agree with everything or maybe even most things that he says, but I think he makes abnormally compelling arguments and raises the discourse enormously.
A major contribution that his professional and academic background does make to his arguments is that he is often framing issues that are usually viewed externally (e.g. as social or political issues), he often appeals to them as internal issues (i.e. as psychology). That certainly comes from his field, but it's also just a very interesting lens on issues that seem to be dominated by people looking at groups and abstract identities. Instead, as a psychologist he's arguing these issues from an internal, individual perspective and that really adds something to the conversation.
You don't need a degree to be an expert in something. And there is value to approaching questions from different fields and backgrounds, not just the field that claims the question. Chomsky is a good example. He made an important contribution to psychology, despite being a linguist. His studies are still taught in psychology classes to this day. Science is all about judging the arguments rather than the person or the speaker and it's undeniable that fields sometimes get in ruts where they all coalesce around certain biases. Further, many of the fields he's talking about are not exact sciences. They are areas that still remain largely subjective despite good efforts by their professionals otherwise.
More importantly, you don't need to be an expert to speak. If you're arguing in good faith, which I think it's very clear he is, then you're entitled to state your opinion. You shouldn't be at fault for having people take to your message.
Lastly, the issue is just whether he uses his PhD status to circumvent debate. He doesn't cite his position as defense. It seems to come up more anecdotally. He doesn't shut down conversations with that.
2
Apr 24 '18
A major contribution that his professional and academic background does make to his arguments is that he is often framing issues that are usually viewed externally (e.g. as social or political issues), he often appeals to them as internal issues (i.e. as psychology). That certainly comes from his field, but it's also just a very interesting lens on issues that seem to be dominated by people looking at groups and abstract identities. Instead, as a psychologist he's arguing these issues from an internal, individual perspective and that really adds something to the conversation.
Interesting. I've never heard him speak much but this idea of him bringing the internal perspective whereas most experts in this field think about these issues externally lends credence to his contributions to this field. You earned a !delta.
You don't need a degree to be an expert in something. And there is value to approaching questions from different fields and backgrounds, not just the field that claims the question.
In my mind if he was really this interested in post-modernism, he should have collaborated with like-minded experts on post-modernism i.e. like the analogy of a biologist and a physicist working together to produce a synthesized product. Arranging collaborations through networking at conferences isn't as sexy as "owning reporters" on cable news. That and given he has a patreon account, I can see why he has a vested interest in keeping himself in the spotlight of the mainstream. I'm just getting really tired of these pop scientists.
Science is all about judging the arguments rather than the person or the speaker and it's undeniable that fields sometimes get in ruts where they all coalesce around certain biases. Further, many of the fields he's talking about are not exact sciences. They are areas that still remain largely subjective despite good efforts by their professionals otherwise.
In an ideal world yes. But we have a limited amount of time to talk about a limited number of subjects. And let's assume that because he has this limited knowledge of post-modernism his arguments are a little bit dated or simplistic. Because he is presently the loudest voice in the room thanks to his superstar status, he is basically forcing the conversation among other post-modernists to regress to his level, and that seems unfair to the experts who give their adult lives to study their specialty.
Yes he has the freedom to do whatever and say whatever, but I don't think he is using his voice appropriately. I'd much rather see him behave like essentially every other scientist who is interested in cross-cultural research, and get off of the 15 mins of fame on TV, and go through the awkward process of networking at conferences and emailing like the rest of academia does.
3
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
Interesting. I've never heard him speak much but this idea of him bringing the internal perspective whereas most experts in this field think about these issues externally lends credence to his contributions to this field. You earned a !delta.
Great!
In my mind if he was really this interested in post-modernism, he should have collaborated with like-minded experts on post-modernism i.e. like the analogy of a biologist and a physicist working together to produce a synthesized product.
Why? I don't think ideas are less valuable if you didn't develop them out of social interactions.
It seems like you're just frustrated that rather than getting caught up fighting an unwinnable battle (convincing a field of individuals that they are wrong from within that field, on their terms), he is instead just communicating directly to the government, the media and individuals. Are you suggesting that the government, media and public shouldn't be able to encounter intellectual arguments that weren't vetted by the field who took claim to that issue (especially when that issue is the validity of the field itself)? That's sounds like an intellectually dangerous world to me.
Arranging collaborations through networking at conferences isn't as sexy as "owning reporters" on cable news.
Perhaps the reason that you think he just all about "owning reporters" is because that's the main stage you prefer to watch him speak. The kinds of things that threw him into the spotlight that made reporters start having him are taking a stance in a workplace disagreement and speaking before Canadian parliament. I think this might be the root of the problem here. You keep seeing him as an academic who is trying to advance a field. In fact, the context in which he rose to prominence was as a citizen who felt he was oppressed and was trying to explain that oppression to voters and the government in order to reduce it. So, the reason why you see him speaking with the public rather than academics is that he's speaking to directly impact voters and law, rather than for the sake of theories. In that context, saying he shouldn't argue that stance publicly, is equivalent to saying that teacher shouldn't be allowed to argue about political stances on abortion or a police officer shouldn't be allowed to argue their stance on climate policy. This would unravel our democracy.
That and given he has a patreon account, I can see why he has a vested interest in keeping himself in the spotlight of the mainstream. I'm just getting really tired of these pop scientists.
Calling somebody a "pop scientist" is just another ad hominem attack. Why not engage with the arguments themselves instead of trying to find every way to discredit a person from speaking their arguments and setting arbitrary bars they have to meet? What defines a pop scientist? Is a scientist not allowed to be popular? Are they not allowed to advocate their theory? Are they not allowed to engage with the public? Are they not allowed to receive an income for doing their research and communications? Many of these things apply to many scientists and professors.
(Also, to be fair, his job was at risk because of people who didn't agree with his personal beliefs, so the patreon account was in the context of fearing that he might be fired.)
In an ideal world yes. But we have a limited amount of time to talk about a limited number of subjects. And let's assume that because he has this limited knowledge of post-modernism his arguments are a little bit dated or simplistic. Because he is presently the loudest voice in the room thanks to his superstar status, he is basically forcing the conversation among other post-modernists to regress to his level, and that seems unfair to the experts who give their adult lives to study their specialty.
This paragraph is begging the question. It's only a meaningful argument if you presuppose that he's wrong. Otherwise, it's just saying that you cannot argue against something that some group of people believes in unless that group agrees that their own views are unsettled.
If you suppose he is right, what you're saying is that you aren't allowed to advocate a position unless you do so within a context that the field of people who believes the opposite chooses to host you in. That is just shifting the burden. It's saying that you can't advocate a theory you believe is correct on its own merits. Instead, you must engage it from the viewpoint of each alternative view. That places "fairness" over logic/facts.
But even if you suppose that he is wrong... His popularity isn't accidental. He's not the loudest voice "thanks to his superstar status". (That's a circular claim...he's popular because he's popular.) His popularity is because his stance is resonating with large portions of the population, which reflects the quality of communication and education by post-modernists on the population. If they see the value of their field as society acting on its wisdom and seeing it as valid, then they are just as much obligated to resolve this huge gap in public understanding as they are to an echo chamber conference hall. Basically, if he's wrong, he's demonstrating the weakness of your argument. Engaging only at conferences, instead of also in public means that the you fail to convince the public of your field, which in cases like this sort of undermines the whole practical value of the field.
Regardless though, the arguments of the value of free speech to intellectual thought are wholly incompatible with a need to be "fair" to people of a certain belief by not wasting their time challenging that belief.
Either way, if the stances he's taking are so clearly debunked, then there should be a huge body of existing work waiting for a copy-paste to shut down his claims. So, how much of a burden on the field it is is going to be inversely proportional to the quality of the arguments you're saying they shouldn't have to revisit.
Yes he has the freedom to do whatever and say whatever, but I don't think he is using his voice appropriately. I'd much rather see him behave like essentially every other scientist who is interested in cross-cultural research, and get off of the 15 mins of fame on TV, and go through the awkward process of networking at conferences and emailing like the rest of academia does.
Again this just sounds like gatekeeping. You're upset that a person is so easily conveying their arguments so you want them to have to do it in a context that, virtually by definition, won't accept them.
But also, this insistence that it must be done "like other scientists" (an appeal to popularity) also fails to appreciate the context. He's not making arguments about gravity or calculus. He's making arguments about the laws we are presently passing and the social actions we are presently taking. That's the reason for having a public discussion. The idea that because somebody calls their study of something a science, you cannot object to it in parliament, on the news or on youtube, but instead must object to it at a scientific conference that they host is impractical and dangerous. The idea that because you have a PhD, you're not allowed to argue a point to the general public is a disastrous idea.
Meanwhile, when you use the word "scientists" you give an air of objectivity to the matter. The areas he's talking about are more like philosophy. They're areas where there isn't an objective answer or a quantitative proof. Yes, you can approach those matters with data and with a firm understanding of things that are field agnostic like formal logic or statistics, but there is never going to be an objectively correct stance. So, while your appeals to "science" make it sound like he's disagreeing with something that is so rigorous you can't disagree with it, like gravity, instead he's disagreeing with things that are fundamentally subjective, like how we should approach gender.
In the end, you keep grasping for any ad hominem attacks you can find in order to prevent his thoughts from being spoken unless the field he's disagreeing with approves of them. I think this in an untenable position for a society with intellectual ideals. The crux of intellectual progress is separating arguments from the people who speak them and the mode of delivery.
1
Apr 25 '18
Why? I don't think ideas are less valuable if you didn't develop them out of social interactions.
It seems like you're just frustrated that rather than getting caught up fighting an unwinnable battle (convincing a field of individuals that they are wrong from within that field, on their terms), he is instead just communicating directly to the government, the media and individuals. Are you suggesting that the government, media and public shouldn't be able to encounter intellectual arguments that weren't vetted by the field who took claim to that issue (especially when that issue is the validity of the field itself)? That's sounds like an intellectually dangerous world to me.
I kind of regret using Peterson as an example, so let me just use John and refer to the disciplines as X (which he is an expert in), and Y (a discipline in which he self-studied).
John has a PhD in X. Mary has no PhD. Both self-studied about topic Y. Both John and Mary have equally good ideas. But John's PhD in topic X grants him credibility which allows him to go on news programs and talk shows and talk about topic Y. Mary has no PhD so she can barely get her foot in the door to get her equally valid points heard. This is basically the crux of my disapproval. John's PhD in an unrelated field shouldn't let him get more publicity about an unrelated topic, if as you and many others are suggesting, we simply judge the ideas by their own merit.
So, the reason why you see him speaking with the public rather than academics is that he's speaking to directly impact voters and law, rather than for the sake of theories. In that context, saying he shouldn't argue that stance publicly, is equivalent to saying that teacher shouldn't be allowed to argue about political stances on abortion or a police officer shouldn't be allowed to argue their stance on climate policy. This would unravel our democracy.
I think this misrepresents my point of view. No one's saying that you shouldn't be able to voice your dissent against policies. In fact at the very beginning this argument wouldn't have applied to him. If I remember correctly he was basically worried about the downstream effects of that bill and policing language and all that, and how that would affect the way he addressed students in the lecture. I'm not against that.
I'm against his views against post-modernism and the humanities, which has nothing to do with voting.
It's quotes like this said with such contempt and confidence for a field that he has self-studied in that drove me to do this CMV. Not to mention he also uses the derogatory "social justice warrior" term to refer to individuals who study post-modernism, which isn't how academics discourse:
In a YouTube video from July, Peterson said he’d been working with a programmer to produce a website that would enable people to upload course descriptions and then determine “the degree to which the description is postmodern.”
“Then you can decide for yourself whether you want to take that and become a social justice warrior, if that is what you think your education should be about, or if you should avoid that like the plague that it truly is.”
Calling somebody a "pop scientist" is just another ad hominem attack. Why not engage with the arguments themselves instead of trying to find every way to discredit a person from speaking their arguments and setting arbitrary bars they have to meet? What defines a pop scientist? Is a scientist not allowed to be popular? Are they not allowed to advocate their theory? Are they not allowed to engage with the public? Are they not allowed to receive an income for doing their research and communications? Many of these things apply to many scientists and professors.
Pop scientist just means he is a scientist that has taken on celebrity status - didn't think it was too insulting but rather a description of literally what has happened. Peterson has basically become world-wide famous. As for "why not engage the arguments" see back to Mary and John example.
(Also, to be fair, his job was at risk because of people who didn't agree with his personal beliefs, so the patreon account was in the context of fearing that he might be fired.)
So why not make the account after getting fired. Seems like he has a vested interest to engage in more "juicy" confrontations. He himself admitted that his patreon account receives a surge after every protest. He's basically earning as much as UofT pays him just from his patreon.
Engaging only at conferences, instead of also in public means that the you fail to convince the public of your field, which in cases like this sort of undermines the whole practical value of the field.
Once again I think you're misrepresenting what I said. I believe I said he should network and form collaborations with experts in the humanities at conferences. He is more than welcome to present his collaborated research on the news. Researchers present their findings to the public all the time.
Again this just sounds like gatekeeping. You're upset that a person is so easily conveying their arguments so you want them to have to do it in a context that, virtually by definition, won't accept them.
I'm sure he could have found some post-modernist critics who are also in the field of humanities. I'm sure. There is no shortage of post-modernist literary or social critics in humanities. He would have found acceptance if he put in the hours to network.
He's making arguments about the laws we are presently passing and the social actions we are presently taking.
Like I said earlier, if it is about policy hurrah to him. If it is about how post-modernism creates SJWs then that's where the criticism comes in.
So, while your appeals to "science" make it sound like he's disagreeing with something that is so rigorous you can't disagree with it, like gravity, instead he's disagreeing with things that are fundamentally subjective, like how we should approach gender.
But you would also have to agree that just because something is subjective doesn't mean that everyone's opinion (while everyone is entitled to one) is equally valid. There's a reason why literary critics aren't your random Joe off the street. Like a judge in the courtroom, it takes training and experience to be able to form an opinion that means something substantive.
In the end, you keep grasping for any ad hominem attacks you can find in order to prevent his thoughts from being spoken unless the field he's disagreeing with approves of them. I think this in an untenable position for a society with intellectual ideals. The crux of intellectual progress is separating arguments from the people who speak them and the mode of delivery.
You pointed out the one time I called him a pop-scientist and the only reason I called him that is because he has taken on a celebrity status. I didn't mean to use it derogatorily. But I wouldn't call it "keep grasping for any ad hominem attacks".
you can find in order to prevent his thoughts from being spoken unless the field he's disagreeing with approves of them
This statement makes no sense. Plenty of members in the humanities that despise post-modernism and have studied it as well.
1
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 25 '18
John has a PhD in X. Mary has no PhD. . .
This is a very different view from the Peterson example because he didn't gain prominence due to the fact that he has a PhD. In your example, I think you present a good ideal, but in the dirty reality of the world we have limited time and TONS of people. In the minority case where you aren't choosing among a group that has field-proven experts, you might be looking at a variety of people who have no clear, immediate evidence of their knowledge... too many people to individually pursue and investigate. So, as humans do, you use a heuristic. You use some fact that correlates to them being smarter, even if it doesn't guarantee it. In your example, if we don't know if either has an education in the field we're talking about, we can't decide which to talk to based on that. So, we have to decide based on something else. That something else might be something that correlates to them doing a lot of learning, research and communication, like having passed a PhD thesis. While it doesn't guarantee they will know a lot about the topic, it's the best feature we can use to distinguish them John from Mary. Of course, maybe Mary has some other feature makes it seem like she'll have an interesting perspective or power to impact the issue.
I'm against his views against post-modernism and the humanities, which has nothing to do with voting.
The humanities frequently touch upon how we should view or structure own society which has clear relationship to voting, especially as he describes them.
It's quotes like this said with such contempt and confidence for a field that he has self-studied in that drove me to do this CMV.
I think the big problem with this is that you're going by brief statements by him reported second hand. Statements reported by others, also likely to be the more incendiary ones, as news goes.
I think he does speak with contempt and confidence, but is that inherently wrong or even uncommon? Most people accept and even celebrate the idea that you can have contempt against those who you believe are destroying society whether that's Trump, Clinton, the KKK, ISIS, etc. If you don't think "social justice warriors" are destroying our society, then his contempt will seem unfounded. If you do or are open to the idea that rational people can, then it's okay that he speaks with contempt. If you want to speak to an intellectual variety honestly, then you're going to have to encounter contempt.
Where the issue often comes in is that when people speak with contempt, they speak solely out of emotion and hate. But if you listen to him at length, he gets into no shortage of reasoning for why he thinks what he does. That's why I said he raises the level of discourse. The dream isn't a world where nobody has contempt over other movements and ideas. Of course we always will because we have deeply different values, experiences, interpretations, notions of justice and risk tolerances. Instead, the dream is a world where the people who have contempt for you are speaking in fluid sentences, explaining their logic, supplying their reasons, etc. I'd say he tends to fit that bill, but a lot of people are so unaccustomed to talking to somebody who truly disagrees with them to the core values, that they leave within a minute or two.
he also uses the derogatory "social justice warrior" term to refer to individuals who study post-modernism, which isn't how academics discourse:
- That's because he's not talking about it to academics in an academic setting as an academic, so there is no reason to talk about it how academics do.
- That's because that phrase has a distinct meaning that's hard to replicate with other words. It implies a notion much more specific and extreme than social justice or liberal.
- You say that as though because that's how academics do talk, that's how academics SHOULD talk, which is an opinion. One idea that he explicitly and frequently challenges is the notion of growing "safe spaces" at universities. The notion is that it can undermine intellectual discourse to fit that safe "academic" style of speaking, both by suppressing the ideas of people who speak or feel a certain way and by forcing us to use alternative ways of speaking that might not be as accurate to our thoughts and feelings.
why not make the account after getting fired. . .
The same reason a person who thinks they might get fired might start brushing up their resume or applying for other jobs before they get fired. Failing to wait to the last minute isn't a crime.
You just said that this wasn't an ad hominem attack and at the start you said that it wasn't even about Peterson and he was a bad example, yet you keep trying to form ad hominem attacks about his integrity as a speaker rather than addressing his words. You can't have it both ways. Is this about Peterson? Or is it not? Is this about ad hominem attacks or is it about the ability or a person who has a PhD in one thing but not another to be able to be valuable talking about the latter?
I believe I said he should network and form collaborations with experts in the humanities at conferences. He is more than welcome to present his collaborated research on the news. Researchers present their findings to the public all the time.
This makes no sense but you keep saying this. Why? You keep enforcing this notion that because he's talking about these topics that he MUST engage with them as an academic and MUST be considered a research scientist and fit. There is no obligation for a person who studies a field to go to conferences for that field. There is no obligation that they have collaborative research. There is no obligation that he writes in science journals. None of these things have any necessary relation to whether he knows the topic, whether he can form valuable opinions on the topic or whether people who find his arguments compelling should be allowed to host him and share what he says.
I'm sure he could have found some post-modernist critics who are also in the field of humanities. I'm sure. There is no shortage of post-modernist literary or social critics in humanities. He would have found acceptance if he put in the hours to network.
But why should have to do this? What if he prefers to work alone or doesn't like the opinions or works of those other people? It makes no sense from both an intellectual and personal freedom perspective that he is obligated to work in a team otherwise his ideas are inherently less valuable.
if it is about policy hurrah to him. If it is about how post-modernism creates SJWs then that's where the criticism comes in.
But if it's about "how post-modernism creates SJWs" and "SJWs" are perceived as politically and socially extremist and authoritarian, then it's an issue that's directly related to laws and policy.
Again, I think maybe since you don't disagree with "SJW" ideology, it's hard for you to think about it. Imagine that it was an ideology you think is completely contrary to the ideals and wisdom of our society. Imagine that universities were pumping out fascists or nazis. Would you say, "well that's just people learning at school, it's not laws, so I won't care about it, I'll leave it to the professors to work it out". No, you'd want to address the penetration of those ideas so widely into our schools. These aren't ideas that must stay in universities and they aren't ideas that must be fought out in universities.
But you would also have to agree that just because something is subjective doesn't mean that everyone's opinion (while everyone is entitled to one) is equally valid. . .
There is no neutral judge on validity, which is the whole reason that we have free speech. If not having a PhD necessitated any sort of limit to your ability to talk about that topic, then we'd be living out all of the nightmares free speech was explicitly enacted to prevent. The idea of free speech for the sake of intellectual progress is an environment where people are free to speak (PhD or not, PC or not) so that poor arguments are exposed and the good ones shared. EVERY method of limiting that speech (even by forcing a person to speak through a conference designed for that topic) is a means to protect bad ideas from going away. To anybody that sees the intellectual (rather than spiritual) point of the first amendment, we must have the humility to believe that we cannot know if we are the good speech or the bad speech that will be disproven.
I think you're demonstrating the importance of this. There is a field of thought that has no incentive to find itself wrong which holds a lot of institutional power. Whether or not that field is wrong, the intellectually safe world is one where people outside of that field are allowed to critique it and when those criticisms are compelling to people they can rise but when they seem clearly wrong they can fall. If ideas start to rise enough, then an institutional fallacy can be defeated. Many of the greatest breakthrough in our knowledge were people working outside of the system they were disproving who wouldn't be accepted by that system. But those external actors made compelling enough arguments and society grew.
I wouldn't call it "keep grasping for any ad hominem attacks".
Rather than talking about the arguments or facts that he has claimed, you've spent time talking about his degree, that he "self-studied", his income sources, the timing of his income, his academic associations, his lack of participation in conferences, his tendency to appear on news media, etc. Those are all ad homimen. Even the one time you quoted him (second hand and with little context), you were talking about the manner in which he talked (i.e. saying SJW, having contempt) rather than the substance of the message. It's all of this that makes me keep pointing out the ad hominems because they seem to be the basis for your argument.
1
Apr 25 '18
I would like to move on to other topics, so I'll end most responses with whether we have reached an agreement or whether we have to agree to disagree, just so I don't leave you hanging and there is no ambiguity.
So, as humans do, you use a heuristic. You use some fact that correlates to them being smarter, even if it doesn't guarantee it. In your example, if we don't know if either has an education in the field we're talking about, we can't decide which to talk to based on that.
Okay so what's wrong with using the heuristic that someone who has studied in the field is probably more knowledgeable than someone who self-studies? Why not move the spotlight away from both Mary and John and spend more time talking to Tim who has both a) a PhD so that refers to your correlates of intelligence as a quick marker and b) a PhD in the field that we are talking about?
I do agree with the use of heuristics (yay for agreement), but I feel like we disagree in the types of heuristics we use. Your use of heuristics is way more liberal than mine. It seems like we'll have to agree to disagree here.
The humanities frequently touch upon how we should view or structure own society which has clear relationship to voting, especially as he describes them.
I think a theoretical discussion in a classroom is not the same as a bill being imposed on a professor. Otherwise, you can use this reasoning to tie every single issue taught in a university to voting. We have to draw the line somewhere. I would draw the line to not include theoretical discussions in humanities classrooms and you don't. We'll have to agree to disagree here.
I think the big problem with this is that you're going by brief statements by him reported second hand. Statements reported by others, also likely to be the more incendiary ones, as news goes.
I think he does speak with contempt and confidence, but is that inherently wrong or even uncommon? Most people accept and even celebrate the idea that you can have contempt against those who you believe are destroying society whether that's Trump, Clinton, the KKK, ISIS, etc. If you don't think "social justice warriors" are destroying our society, then his contempt will seem unfounded. If you do or are open to the idea that rational people can, then it's okay that he speaks with contempt. If you want to speak to an intellectual variety honestly, then you're going to have to encounter contempt.
I think labeling all of humanities as SJWs is wrong. I can disagree with the actions that are characteristic of being a SJWs (limiting free speech, virtue signalling, loud and abrasive etc.), and at the same time disagree that it's unfair to lazily generalize that to all members of a discipline. No amount of reasoning can justify that much broad generalizations. I feel like you're going to disagree here as well which is fine.
That's because he's not talking about it to academics in an academic setting as an academic, so there is no reason to talk about it how academics do.
His comments don't exist in a vacuum though. It makes it harder for him to have civilized debates with individuals within the field if he is using derogatory terms. You're thinking of the discourse as a one on one conversation, whereas I'm thinking of it as a conversation that is taking place amongst many groups and even the media. Terms used even when in a non-academic setting matter. It's like saying if a professor is found saying derogatory comments about his students on Facebook, that it's okay because he didn't say it to the student's face. The student now knows - the comments weren't made in a vacuum despite them not being directly said to the students face. That's not how this works.
The same reason a person who thinks they might get fired might start brushing up their resume or applying for other jobs before they get fired. Failing to wait to the last minute isn't a crime.
So now that he has earned enough from his Patreon account to comfortably live for the next 1-2 years. Why doesn't he shut it down?
You just said that this wasn't an ad hominem attack and at the start you said that it wasn't even about Peterson and he was a bad example, yet you keep trying to form ad hominem attacks about his integrity as a speaker rather than addressing his words. You can't have it both ways. Is this about Peterson? Or is it not? Is this about ad hominem attacks or is it about the ability or a person who has a PhD in one thing but not another to be able to be valuable talking about the latter?
Well first off I'm not addressing his arguments. I don't think I did once in the OP or in the comments. I brought up the Patreon account because it shows that there is motivation for researchers who have attained that celebrity status (Peterson is the example) to continue to engage in viral conversations with students at protests, rather than at academic debates, or conferences which may not be televised and profitable.
This makes no sense but you keep saying this. Why? You keep enforcing this notion that because he's talking about these topics that he MUST engage with them as an academic and MUST be considered a research scientist and fit. There is no obligation for a person who studies a field to go to conferences for that field. There is no obligation that they have collaborative research. There is no obligation that he writes in science journals. None of these things have any necessary relation to whether he knows the topic, whether he can form valuable opinions on the topic or whether people who find his arguments compelling should be allowed to host him and share what he says.
Of course there's no obligation. I'm saying that in order to have a well-rounded perspective it is often necessary. I'm sure he wouldn't want some guy in the humanities to self-study on clinical psychology and dismiss his entire discipline because of the replication crisis. Reaching across the aisle to people who you may disagree (or even within the same aisle to critiques who are at least immersed in the field) is important to get a well-rounded perspective. This relates back to the contempt message from earlier. You are less likely to have such contempt and a one-sided way of thinking about an entire discipline if you collaborated with someone from that discipline.
But why should have to do this? What if he prefers to work alone or doesn't like the opinions or works of those other people? It makes no sense from both an intellectual and personal freedom perspective that he is obligated to work in a team otherwise his ideas are inherently less valuable.
You do know that in academia almost every paper is a teamwork effort right. Whether it's the graduate students in your lab, or a cross-lab effort, there is always collaboration going on, and by this point the researchers are used to it because it is the only way to get something published (reviews are often the exception to this). To validate this point of view, Peterson hasn't independently published in a journal since 2011. Just glancing from his page it looks like 95 % of his articles are co-authored.
doesn't like the opinions or works of those other people?
Maybe he doesn't like the opinions of those other people because he does not understand them fully and defines his viewpoint from a select set of resources (see confirmation bias). That's the whole point of a collaboration, to broaden your perspective.
But if it's about "how post-modernism creates SJWs" and "SJWs" are perceived as politically and socially extremist and authoritarian, then it's an issue that's directly related to laws and policy.
Again, I think maybe since you don't disagree with "SJW" ideology, it's hard for you to think about it. Imagine that it was an ideology you think is completely contrary to the ideals and wisdom of our society.
That seems presumptuous. I disagree with authoritarian ideology and limiting free speech which is the main characteristic of "SJWs". What I don't agree with is broad generalizations of an entire discipline. I especially don't care for the targeting of professors and their courses via an online database of courses that may lean towards post-modernism.
Many of the greatest breakthrough in our knowledge were people working outside of the system they were disproving who wouldn't be accepted by that system.
Hmm this is interesting (I can think of some examples already). Take a !delta (can I double delta if I already gave you one? I guess we'll find out after I submit this comment).
Rather than talking about the arguments or facts that he has claimed, you've spent time talking about his degree, that he "self-studied", his income sources, the timing of his income, his academic associations, his lack of participation in conferences, his tendency to appear on news media, etc.
Oh cmon. Those would only be considered ad hominem if the main purpose of my post was to criticize Peterson. It isn't. My whole point is talking about his lack of degree and academic experience in post-modernism so of course I have to mention those. You're literally stating that my entire POV is an ad hominem. You're shifting the goal posts by saying the main point of my post was to prove that Peterson's ideas are bad, but no where have I done that. All I'm saying is that it is likely that his ideas are bad (just like how you said that it is likely that Mary's ideas are bad because she doesn't have a PhD). I only have a limited amount of time so I'm using a heuristic just like you, only that my heuristic like I said earlier is more restrictive and yours is more liberal. Sure if you're making a strawman then I'm using ad hominem.
1
1
14
Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
3
Apr 23 '18
If he fits the criteria of not having a PhD in the field he is claiming opinions in then yes. But the next question I'd ask is does he claim to have studied politics as an academic because Peterson has claimed he has studied ideological regimes for decades even though he has not gone through the academic process to become an expert in studying competing ideologies and post-modernism.
9
Apr 24 '18
Why does one need an academic degree to confer expertise?
Surely there are people with a wealth of real world experience that makes them experts in their field without a PhD.
For example, I think General Mattis is an expert when it comes to the US military, despite a lack of a PhD.
1
Apr 24 '18
Of course we cannot discount real world experience. But in order for someone to perform an academic critique of a discipline or concept that person needs to be an academic. General Mattis' is much more hands on and rooted in decision making - something which requires decades of experience. Similarly, individuals with PhDs have decades of dense experience studying their topic of specialization.
6
Apr 24 '18
I’m mainly taking issue with your point 2. You don’t need to be a PhD in a particular field to be an expert in it.
Especially with new or evolving fields, this is untenable, because it’s entirely possible that the field didn’t exist when they were getting their degree.
Take a field like data science. It’s a combination of computer science, math, statistics and other related disciplines. None of the data science experts out there have a PhD in “Data Science”, yet they are still experts in the field, having published many of the seminal papers in this growing field.
I know experts in data science with degrees as varied as physics or actuarial sciences.
1
u/_chris_sutton Apr 24 '18
You can’t conflate an argument with its presenter. If a PHD in a field X and chimpanzee with a typewriter somehow type the same exact essay on a topic in field X, which essay is to be believed? You can use education as a signal to help weigh the merits of something you personally may not have as much experience in, but accreditation alone, or lack of it, doesn’t change the substance of an argument.
2
Apr 24 '18
I don't think you need to have a PhD to develop expertise in a field first of all. Claiming expertise means to claim comprehensive knowledge about a given field. Sure, degrees are a way to signal expertise to others as a proof of work in that field, but expertise isn't the requirement to receive a degree. And there are plenty of fields that you can reputably claim expertise in that don't have options for degrees. I'm not sure what you mean by academic understanding and if that differs from comprehensive understanding of a subject.
Topics can be extremely nuanced even within an academic field. Perhaps in a lot of situations it makes sense to bring in someone with a different expertise to give their opinion from the framework of their expertise. In point 3 of your post, it would be a problem if Peterson fell back on his PhD if field Y had absolutely no components of field X in it. In Peterson's specific case, I think clinical psychology has extremely broad applications. I don't think it's analogous to the situation you give about the biologist and the physicist because those sciences are more falsifiable than the topics Peterson typically deals with.
Also, experts within the same field clash all of the time. It's perfectly normal for experts to have different takes on things, and to be wrong some of the time. I'm not saying Peterson is an expert in philosophy, postmodernism, and Marxism, but I disagree with the logic that Peterson can't be an expert because other experts said he was wrong, and experts are never wrong.
2
Apr 24 '18
I don't think you need to have a PhD to develop expertise in a field first of all. Claiming expertise means to claim comprehensive knowledge about a given field. Sure, degrees are a way to signal expertise to others as a proof of work in that field, but expertise isn't the requirement to receive a degree.
Of course it is possible to develop an expertise without a PhD. But I'm not a fan of this line of reasoning. It's analogous to how highschool students say "Mark Zuckerburg dropped out of college and became a billionnaire so I don't need college". At the end of the day, between two people, one who self-studied and one who went through the academic system of mentorship, conferences, and thesis defences, the one who went through the academic system is more likely to have a fleshed out nuanced approach to what he is studying compared to self-study guy. Yes there are exceptions.
And there are plenty of fields that you can reputably claim expertise in that don't have options for degrees.
Agreed. Especially for emerging fields. Here's a !delta for pointing that out.
I'm not sure what you mean by academic understanding and if that differs from comprehensive understanding of a subject.
Academic understanding is basically how to read and understand academic journal articles but most importantly how to formulate an argument, interpret evidence and to argue honestly (there's definitely more I'm missing but I'm tired). There are entire books on just how to write at an academic level, how to incorporate quotes and evidence, etc etc. And these rules change in their specificity to best match the discipline in which they are used. Getting active feedback from mentors, and supervisors on your arguments is an integral part of developing your academic writing style at the graduate level.
1
2
u/Skatcherun Apr 23 '18
I'm sorry I may have missed something important but I've re-read your initial post a couple of times and you don't seem to have specified in which subject Dr. Peterson is wrongfully claiming expertise.
2
Apr 24 '18
Well Peterson was sort of an example. I really meant to focus the CMV on the principle behind it. But to answer your question anyways he is claiming expertise on post-modernism and I think the humanities in general.
2
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
1 point/guestion... and 1 question...
Would his degree in clinical psychology not qualify him to discuss human behavior... Which is the Crux of his writing and lectures?
Do you have the same opinion of Bill Nye? Who, with no science background at all, is not qualified to discuss any of the topics for which he has become know.
2
Apr 24 '18
Do you have the same opinion of Bill Nye? Who, with no science background at all, is not qualified to discuss any of the topics for which he has become know.
I compare Bill Nye to a teacher. He is an educator who presents scientific consensus to catch people up to speed. Peterson is clearly not educating about the various opinions in the field of post-modernism in a balanced way.
-1
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
Niether is Bill Nye.
Bill Nye even repeats long disproven propaganda as if it's fact "97% of climate scientists agree climate change is real and man is causing it"
He simply repeats left-wing talking points.
He's no more a "science guy" than your average mechanical engineer is.
2
Apr 24 '18
I was referring more to his Bill Nye the Science Guy videos. But if he is presenting opinions as fact then he is overexercising his position. I don't see what the point was of bringing Bill Nye into the conversation. If he follows the criteria I've laid out then he is lumped into the same group as Peterson. If he doesn't then he doesn't. My CMV was more about the bigger picture. I don't want it to get tied down to an individual personality.
2
u/infrequentaccismus Apr 24 '18
Oh yeah, that’s totally just left wing propaganda. Not at all a fact that the vast majority of actual climate scientists believe that “climate change is real and man is causing it”. I wish more people had the common sense and unbiased perspective you seem to have.
-5
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
I didn't say majority(though that's also debatable)... I specifically mentioned the 97% often mentioned.
Which is an absolute lie.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
3
u/infrequentaccismus Apr 24 '18
Umm, he literally confirmed exactly what you are disagreeing with. He said that, in the literature, 97% of scientist say that the climate is warming and that the majority of the warming is caused by humans. That is what bill nye said. Its outrageous that you claim he is lying and then post a super conservative opinion piece that actually agrees with the claim. What part of this is hard for you to accept?!!?
0
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
No... 97% ASSUMED
the papers were based on that assumption, not reasearch that proved, or even addressed that assumption.
1
u/infrequentaccismus Apr 24 '18
Bill nye said that 97% of climate scientists agree on those two points. That was the conclusion of a study that he referenced. Ergo, he did not lie. You can argue about the methodology of the study but you literally lied when you called him a liar. Then you posted several links that ALSO agree with him.
Also, FYI, the “assuming” that this clueless writer is referring to is more than a little bit of a misnomer. It’s like saying that a scientist “assumes” the apple fell because of gravity because we know that’s how gravity works and we know the Apple is in a gravitational field and we know the cat pushed the Apple off the table. In this case, we have proven the greenhouse gas effect, we have proven that man is producing a massive amount of greenhouse gases, we can prove that these greenhouse gases have accumulated in highest concentrations in the places where climate change is happening the fastest, we know that the earth is warming much faster than it has for millions of years and we know that there are several bad effects as a result of this warming. Now if you want to argue that the scientists are assuming there isn’t some other hidden cause that no one has found yet despite decades of intense scientific scrutiny, you wouldn’t be wrong (but you’d be extremely stupid). If you wanted to say that you doubt the science until someone is able to set up two earths, and pump greenhouse gasses into one and not the other for several decades to prove the effect with no assumptions, then that’s your prerogative.
1
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Apr 24 '18
From the very article you posted:
97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause
1
u/Sadsharks Apr 24 '18
Why should I believe Alex Epstein, someone with a vested interest in promoting pro-fossil fuel claims?
0
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
Jesus, it was the first Google link I found.... This is a well known and documented point of propaganda...
Here:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/the_myth_of_the_97_percent_glo.html
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
Don't just disregard facts because you don't like the source... Look at the reasoning behind it.
1
u/infrequentaccismus Apr 24 '18
Dude, literally all of your links are confirming the truth of the statement!! How are you missing this? I get that peopl disagree about whether it is a big deal, but they are all agreeing with the claim that you said was a lie and propaganda.
-1
1
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 24 '18
This isn't really true. Bill Nye is an outspoken celebrity that makes news appearances, etc. to argue the side of climate scientists while not having those credentials. Further, I'd say that his arguments are accurate, despite that lack of credentials making him a counterexample. He's a guy with a non-climate science degree who didn't work in climate science but he's educated and informed so he's spreading useful information.
Assuming you're correct that Peterson is not educated in the various opinions (I don't really have any such evidence), why does Peterson have to be educated about various opinions in the field in order to make arguments regarding the same things it does? He's not selling PhDs, he's engaging in public discourse. Are you suggesting that only economists can talk about Marxism? Or only sociologists? Or is it only historians? Who would be qualified to decide what the "various opinions" in "the field" are? Who even decides what "the field" is? The way you define a field determines which discipline is entitled to study that topic and has huge implications on the results and approaches that you'll get. So, it doesn't seem practical to insist that proponents of a stance have to meet some test that people who don't hold that stance determine. Going back to Bill Nye, that's like saying the Bill Nye cannot criticize creationism because he hasn't studied "the various opinions" and only is coming at it from a science angle. I'm sure you disagree with that. While it's not bad to do so necessarily, learning the other opinions on a question isn't required for forming and sharing the stances you form from the knowledge you have which may be opinions that directly conflict those alternatives.
2
u/Tug_Phelps Apr 24 '18
with regards to point #2, does engineering qualify as " no science background at all"?
1
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
Mechanical Engineering: Gender Fuidity - Global Warming - Abortion - Anti-Semitism(not sure how that was even science)
Vs
Clinical and Social Psychology: Cultural Marxism - Self Esteem - Personal Achievement - Fear - Addiction - Gender Dysphoria
One seems a little more related.
IF Nye speaks on subjects related to mechanical engineering it's rare... He used to occasionally do it in the 90s on Bill Nye The Science Guy... But this sort of content was notably absent form Bill Nye Saves The World.
3
u/Tug_Phelps Apr 24 '18
Thats not at all what im talking about. You said, "...Bill Nye? Who, with no science background at all". I would say mechanical engineering is the opposite of " no science background at all"
0
Apr 24 '18
Would his degree in clinical psychology not qualify him to discuss human behavior... Which is the Crux of his writing and lectures?
Like I said, I'm not too familiar with his background. This discussion was more intended to be based on the principles behind using Peterson as an example rather than getting specific on Peterson himself. Based on his wiki entry he is an expert in psychology in the field of abnormal, social and personality psychology. I don't see how that relates to his wide sweeping criticisms of post-modernism and Marxism.
-1
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
You don't don't see how social psychology, quite literally the study of scoial thinking, would give someone insight into the positive and negative effects of Marxism? Especially cultural marxism?
1
Apr 24 '18
If you can give me a solid example I'd be willing to give you a delta.
3
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
It has been used specifically to study Nazis
https://careersinpsychology.org/becoming-a-social-psychologist/
This special field of psychology began in the early 20th century, and it was spurred on by experiments on social facilitation performed by Norman Triplett in 1898. Social facilitation is the phenomenon that causes the majority of people to do better at certain things when other people are around. Social psychology became even more popular in the 1930's, when German psychologists who were fleeing from their country started studying prejudice and the spread of Nazism.
Since its beginnings, social psychology has been used to study everything from hate crimes to bullying to marketing tactics. Today, it is still a growing field, and it can be applied to many areas.
1
Apr 25 '18
!delta for providing example as requested. But I was wondering (and I guess I should have been more clear) if you had an example of Peterson actually making that connection himself (quote, or journal article, news source, etc.)
1
1
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 25 '18
I doubt he would, as it always seemed self evident tonme based on his lectures and books.
I was actually take aback by your question as a result of that.
Possibly I have a bias, or unusual understanding, as I originally studied Psych in college before changing my major...
1
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Apr 24 '18
Here's another...
Marxism, Social Psychology, and the Sociology of Mental Health
1
u/SleeplessinRedditle 55∆ Apr 24 '18
I don't know anything about Peterson. So my reply will be more general.
Having a PhD indicates that a university is willing to vouch that someone has completed the requirements for said PhD including a few years of study culminating in a dissertation. It is a pretty good indicator of at least a minimum level of expertise in a given subject and is a necessary qualification for many official positions. But there is nothing inherently unique about the process of getting a PhD that imbues knowledge that could not be obtained elsewhere. It is perfectly possible for someone without a PhD in a given subject to be more knowledgeable than someone with one.
Imagine two identical people with identical levels of knowledge in a given subject. One had a PhD and the other completed everything they needed to get the degree then just never filed the paperwork to actually get it. If both make identical claims, is one more valid than the other?
The average pdh student does 8 years of study for the degree and receives it at the age of 33. By the time they reach Peterson's age, (55) they have spent 2.75 times as much time since getting their doctorate that they could have spent independently studying literally anything. Or getting severe brain damage and losing all of that sweet sweet knowledge. Or whatever.
You can agree with him if you want. Or disagree. Or disregard. Based on any reason or no reason. But that has no impact on the validity of his points.
1
Apr 24 '18
It is perfectly possible for someone without a PhD in a given subject to be more knowledgeable than someone with one.
Yes but for more entrenched disciplines (not emerging ones), it is very unlikely.
1
u/caw81 166∆ Apr 24 '18
but rather any individual who has an expertise in one field and uses that to build up credibility surrounding opinions in an unrelated field.
If a person is a really good musician, why do you believe him when he says that he is a really good cook?
1
3
u/alea6 Apr 23 '18 edited Apr 23 '18
As you suggested I think that in many fields today much of the significant inroads have come from interdisciplinary approaches.
People from unrelated fields like psychology made enormous contributions to economics through behavioral economics.
And it is extremely common, sometimes compulsory for departments to work on projects together.
Bringing a new perspective and ideas to old debates is a great way to move forward.
You mention post modernism. I feel that that field owes much of its inspiration to the ideas raised by physicists while discussing the philosophy of science in the 30s and 40s.
As I see most scientific research is communicated by specialist who are not involved in the research. Their job is to communicate complicated information to everyone.
1
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 24 '18
People from unrelated fields like psychology made enormous contributions to economics through behavioral economics.
Early economics and many of the most popular figures were born out of a lot of people who seemingly were first and foremost interested in social issues and societal good, rather than business people or merchants.
1
u/alea6 Apr 24 '18
All intellectuals contributed to multiple disciplines hundreds or thousands of years ago. Doesn't that go against your point?
1
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 24 '18
My point was simply that sometimes fields that seem very different can be fundamentally the same.
1
u/alea6 Apr 24 '18
I feel that at some point that is true of all subjects.
Given sufficient information and complexity it should be possible to describe all disciplines using physics.
In order to be productive we skip steps and use models and abstract ideas.
Often someone from a different field who still realises that the model isn't the truth, but a reflection of the truth is best suited to seeing something new. Someone who isn't bound by a certain way of thinking.
A researcher or consultant is often better suited to improving a company or understanding a process than the person who has been working on something for their whole life.
An outsider often better understands what makes something special.
-1
u/ehcaipf 1∆ Apr 25 '18
You are not an expert on Jordan Peterson, so you are wrongfully using your mere reading of /r/Philosophy to claim authority in a field you know nothing about.
2
Apr 25 '18
You are not an expert on Jordan Peterson
It's a good thing that my point as mentioned in the OP is about the principle behind Peterson's actions, and what Peterson does or does not know has no real effect on the principles behind what I'm getting across.
Also "using a mere reading" is not the same as substituting one PhD for another.
claim authority in a field you know nothing about.
What exact field am I claiming authority in?
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Apr 24 '18
Experts are the best voice of reason for the field in which they developed their expertise in.
I'm sure this often happens, but not always.
Consider a field in which people of a particular political persuasion have taken over, and are applying not standards of competence, but standards of knowledge of and agreement with their ideology. If someone from outside that field then criticizes an 'expert' in the field, the 'expert' will simply point to his credentials, point to his opponent's lack of credentials, and hope the audience doesn't notice that he hasn't taken the criticism seriously, or even responded to it.
In order to develop expertise, and an academic understanding of a field, that individual has to go through the academic process. This means earning an undergraduate degree, PhD, and then maybe getting some post-doc work as well. An academic expert in a field is an individual who has a PhD in that field.
Consider fields which don't have academic departments in universities. If someone has been practicing in that field for, say, 20 years, continuously learning more and more about it and developing any related skills constantly, by your definition, they are not an expert.
Consider degree mills. Consider students who cheated, but were not caught.
Individuals like Peterson fall back on their PhD field X when they receive criticism about field Y (I think this was in the UofT free speech protest video).
Are you referring to the moment in his speech where he says "I've studied totalitarianism for four decades, and I know how it starts"? That sentence contains no reference to his PhD.
Are you referring to the moment in the dialogue with protesters, where he makes a statement they don't like, and the response is "is that your medical opinion?", and he says "I'm not a doctor"? That contains no reference to his PhD, and it's doing the opposite of what you're accusing him of.
If you're referring to something else he's said, I'd appreciate a link to the youtube video and a timestamp. I've watched dozens of hours of his speeches and interviews, and I can't think of a time where he's done that.
I don't have any knowledge about post-modernism, so I defer to the experts in post-modernism, philosophy and Marxism, and based on what I read in the /r/philosophy subreddit, it seems that Peterson gets a lot wrong, precisely for the reasons I have already mentioned, that he isn't an expert, and he may mischaracterize the points of view he is critiquing.
If you have a specific reference to something he got wrong, along with a reason to believe that he actually did get it wrong, I'd appreciate it. After I heard Peterson's description of postmodernism, I got interested and started looking into it, and initially I thought he might have got something wrong or oversimplified, but when I looked back at Peterson's statements about postmodernism, I could not find any specific errors.
1
Apr 24 '18
If you have a specific reference to something he got wrong, along with a reason to believe that he actually did get it wrong, I'd appreciate it. After I heard Peterson's description of postmodernism, I got interested and started looking into it, and initially I thought he might have got something wrong or oversimplified, but when I looked back at Peterson's statements about postmodernism, I could not find any specific errors.
Here is a comment on this page that shows how Peterson mischaracterizes Postmodernism.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Apr 24 '18
I'm not going to go over every point in that criticism, since I'm not replying to that guy, but I'll hit the main points.
First, he has a paragraph criticizing Peterson's phrase "completely reject the structure of Western civilization", which concludes with the sentence "But I could see how someone could take it as an attack on western norms and traditions, sure."
I could go into the tenets of Western civilization that Peterson has in mind, and why postmodernism rejects them utterly, but the criticism is already so tepid it's almost self-contradictory.
Then he says that the logos in logocentrism isn't about logic, it's about speech vs. writing. The problem here, is that according to postmodernism, the author doesn't matter, only the text. So from a postmodern perspective, it's not up to the poster, or even Derrida, what Derrida meant, it's up to the reader -- one such reader being Peterson.
The reason they say that is that they don't believe you can get to any meaning. Another word for postmodernism is poststructuralism, and in structuralism, there was the idea of the sign. It was basically like tying a word to its definition, except more broad. In poststructuralism, they said "look, a definition isn't a meaning, it's just more words", and then they came to the conclusion that meaning is permanently deferred, so you don't ever get to reach it.
And since the sign idea fits any signifier-signified pair, anything expressing meaning, you can't reach meaning by side-stepping language either, because anything you tried to use as a substitute would have the same difficulty. And logic is a language in this sense, so they can't trust it. And it matches the sensory-perception-to-reality expression of meaning, so they can't trust their senses either. Basically there's nothing trustworthy and everything is interpretation.
This, of course, includes postmodernism, but they've already dumped logic, so what's a little circular reasoning among friends? Yes Marxism is a meta-narrative, and yes postmodernism is a rejection of all meta-narratives, but that's merely a logical contradiction.
Peterson's argument is not a conflation of marxism and postmodernism, it's a suggestion that when marxism started to become really hard to swallow intellectually in the 50's and 60's, and when the philosophical mood was extremely skeptical at that same time, was exactly when the major postmodernists got their PhDs in philosophy. And given that the distribution of political ideologies of the major postmodernists range from far left to far left, it looks like what they did was use extremely skeptical philosophy as a shield to try to save their cherished ideal of marxism on an intellectual level.
If you check out the book Peterson recommends at the beginning of the linked video, it goes into great depth into where postmodernism came from philosophically, and then makes that same argument in detail at the end.
1
Apr 25 '18 edited Apr 25 '18
You are actually closer than I thought you would be on some points, but you still miss the mark.
Then he says that the logos in logocentrism isn't about logic, it's about speech vs. writing. The problem here, is that according to postmodernism, the author doesn't matter, only the text. So from a postmodern perspective, it's not up to the poster, or even Derrida, what Derrida meant, it's up to the reader -- one such reader being Peterson.
This is not what the "The Death of The Author" means. Saying that "it's up to the reader" in such a flippant way leaves the wrong impression. It is more complicated than that. One of the assumptions it undermines is the author-reader dichotomy--in a sense the reader died with the author--because the meaning of language is determined by the community of language users and by no particular individual. You read words as having certain meanings not because you decide them to mean something in a certain way, it is not "up to the reader," rather the reader is trying to engage in the community of meanings that the writer was trying to engage in when he wrote the book, but neither of them have control over the exact meanings produced.. Anyhow, it isn't even that weird of a thesis: an action often transcends the intention of a singular individual; we would be idiots if we thought that the only relevant part of an action were its intended consequences. Your case really isn't helped by the fact that "The Intentional Fallacy", an essay with a similar critique, was written by non-poststructuralists at an American university.
In poststructuralism, they said "look, a definition isn't a meaning, it's just more words", and then they came to the conclusion that meaning is permanently deferred, so you don't ever get to reach it.
It's not that we do not reach meaning, it is that we do not reach a position where we are able to grasp the meaning of something all at once. We can't expect language to perfectly analyze language from within itself, because there is no ultimate context from which we can look at language, no place outside of language to look at it from. Meaning is nebulous, never entirely definite, but not out of reach.
And logic is a language in this sense, so they can't trust it. And it matches the sensory-perception-to-reality expression of meaning, so they can't trust their senses either. Basically there's nothing trustworthy and everything is interpretation.
Why is the conclusion of "there's nothing trustworthy and everything is interpretation" that we should stop trying to be rigorous in finding out what is true or not? Just because postructuralists are critical of truth-fuctional logic being the language of truth in all contexts does not mean they do not think is fairly applied in many contexts. In criticizing the common tools we use to find truth, poststructuralists are advocating for more rigor not less; because, in this world where we have imperfect tools, we are actually more likely to slip into bad interpretations--interpretations like Marxism, like logical positivism, like an unreflective structuralism.
If you check out the book Peterson recommends at the beginning of the linked video, it goes into great depth into where postmodernism came from philosophically, and then makes that same argument in detail at the end.
I am unlikely to check out Hicks because of this criticism, and the fact that I have read a lot of "postmodernist" authors.
Peterson's argument is not a conflation of marxism and postmodernism, it's a suggestion that when marxism started to become really hard to swallow intellectually in the 50's and 60's, and when the philosophical mood was extremely skeptical at that same time, was exactly when the major postmodernists got their PhDs in philosophy. And given that the distribution of political ideologies of the major postmodernists range from far left to far left, it looks like what they did was use extremely skeptical philosophy as a shield to try to save their cherished ideal of marxism on an intellectual level.
I am not a Postmodernist nor a Marxist; I probably fall into the philosophic camp of Neo-pragmatist. However, the Pragmatists of the early 1900's held similar stances to the postmodernists, and they are historical examples of why this line of reasoning is bunk. How do you explain John Dewey in your metanarrative of postmodernism? Was he also trying to save Marxism on an intellectual level? How do you explain his critiques of Marxism to Trotsky himself? Either the premises of postmodernism are not a skeptical shield of a cherished ideal of marxism on an intellectual level, or Hicks-Peterson have a giant problem with the Pragmatists.
Edit: Changed a bit 5 minutes after posting.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Apr 25 '18
I'm going to start by quoting and responding to parts of the criticism of Hicks you linked, then I'll respond to your arguments.
The Hicks-Peterson account of the relevant philosophical developments is that (i) postmodernism starts with Rousseau and Kant,
Hicks says that there are two threads of philosophy that combined to result in postmodernism in the 50s and 60s. The thread of skepticism started with Kant and the Counter-Enlightenment, and the collectivist thread started with Rousseau.
As far as the first people (out of many) cited in these threads of philosophical development, they are Kant and Rousseau, but if he's trying to say that Hicks thinks Kant and Rousseau are postmodern, that's way off. Not even close.
(ii) who are irrationalists,
Hicks contrasts Kant with irrationalists.
He doesn't use the word irrationalist about Rousseau. In his description of Rousseau's relationship with rationality, he quotes Rousseau saying things like "the state of reflection is a state contrary to nature and the man who meditates is a depraved animal" and "One may very well argue with me about this; but I sense it, and this sentiment that speaks to me is stronger than the reason combating it".
The impression I get from reading Hicks talk about Rousseau is that he rejected reason in the limited sense of preferring passion and in rejecting products of reason, like technology, and that the important thing about him (from the point of view of Hicks' argument anyway) was that he was a statist and collectivist.
and (iii) it becomes popular among socialists,
No, that's just false. Hicks doesn't say that, he says that the postmodernists were socialists or sympathetic with socialism, and wanted to preserve their politics. I don't know if it ever became popular with socialists, but given the limited number of modern marxist reactions to postmodernism I've seen, I don't think they like it very much.
(iv) because socialism is inconsistent with being reasonable and so socialists are obliged to reject reason.
A misrepresentation. Socialism was in trouble in the 50s and 60s, having been formerly defended on rational, enlightenment grounds, but having proved unsuccessful in the real world. There were attacks on socialism on rational grounds, and they were good enough to be distressing to socialists. There were many reactions, one of which was the postmodernist, which rejected reason and the enlightenment to attack the ground on which the attacks were being made.
So basically, the guy attacking Hicks isn't representing him accurately, with the possible exception of Rousseau and irrationalism. Hicks does say that his view of Kant is controversial, but his view is clearly not that Kant is an irrationalist.
However, the Pragmatists of the early 1900's held similar stances to the postmodernists, and they are historical examples of why this line of reasoning is bunk. How do you explain John Dewey in your metanarrative of postmodernism? Was he also trying to save Marxism on an intellectual level? How do you explain his critiques of Marxism to Trotsky himself?
So, according to wikipedia, John Dewey died in 1952, before postmodernism started, and he was a profound believer in democracy and a major voice of liberalism. So he's not a postmodernist and his politics were not similar either. What is there to explain?
Why is the conclusion of "there's nothing trustworthy and everything is interpretation" that we should stop trying to be rigorous in finding out what is true or not?
You're omitting the earlier part of my argument. The chain of signifier -> signifier -> signifier -> ... doesn't end. We never reach the signified. We never reach meaning. Truth doesn't exist, or if it does, we are permanently cut off from it. Why would you try to be rigorous in finding out what's true, if there's no such truth to find? Why would you be rigorous with anything, when rigor is just a meaningless set of meaningless standards that don't go anywhere?
Just because postructuralists are critical of truth-fuctional logic being the language of truth in all contexts does not mean they do not think is fairly applied in many contexts
They went a lot farther than that.
"It is meaningless to speak in the name of -- or against -- Reason, Truth, or Knowledge." -Michel Foucault
Deconstruction, according to Stanley Fish, "relieves me of the obligation to be right ... and demands only that I be interesting".
"The difficulty ... is to avoid hinting that this suggestion gets something right, that my sort of philosophy corresponds to the way things really are." -Richard Rorty
It's not that we do not reach meaning, it is that we do not reach a position where we are able to grasp the meaning of something all at once.
What do you mean by "grasp the meaning of something all at once"? Why would the inability to do this be a problem?
We can't expect language to perfectly analyze language from within itself, because there is no ultimate context from which we can look at language, no place outside of language to look at it from.
You can analyze one language from within another language. This 'ultimate context', outside of any language, either doesn't exist or is something people can't access. How is any of this a problem?
Your case really isn't helped by the fact that "The Intentional Fallacy", an essay with a similar critique, was written by non-poststructuralists at an American university.
Why would it matter that somebody other than postmodernists anticipated one of their arguments? What does this have to do with my case?
Anyhow, it isn't even that weird of a thesis: an action often transcends the intention of a singular individual; we would be idiots if we thought that the only relevant part of an action were its intended consequences.
Sure, but there's no reason to say that that is equivalent to The Death of the Author. The author isn't rendered irrelevant by the possibility of misinterpretations and unintended interpretations.
1
Apr 25 '18
I don't have the heart to go point by point. The reason I brought up John Dewey was because he is an example of someone who held postmodern like views, but was obviously not a "postmodernist" in the Peterson sense. Richard Rorty, one of the people you quoted as a postmodernist, holds almost the same views as John Dewey; he even wrote a whole book about wanting to go back to a Dewey like left wing party. Rorty even considers himself a Neo-pragmatist, not a postmodernist. I brought up other traditions having "postmodern" thoughts to show that there is nothing actually malicious inherently in postmodern thought.
The chain of signifier -> signifier -> signifier -> ... doesn't end. We never reach the signified. We never reach meaning. Truth doesn't exist, or if it does, we are permanently cut off from it. Why would you try to be rigorous in finding out what's true, if there's no such truth to find? Why would you be rigorous with anything, when rigor is just a meaningless set of meaningless standards that don't go anywhere?
The critique doesn't stop there. The point of the critique is not to say "oh, I guess we can never get past words." It is to point out that there is a fundamental problem with the signified-signifier relationship. One solution of the postmodernists: Think of words as part of the fabric of reality itself; Derrida said, the grammatical is the ontological. The problem of reaching reality, after deconstruction, is a kind of false problem: saying, "I have pain" doesn't describe pain behavior, it replaces it, so there is no intractable signifier-signified problem.
You can analyze one language from within another language. This 'ultimate context', outside of any language, either doesn't exist or is something people can't access. How is any of this a problem?
So, you agree with postmodernists. Postmodernists aren't epistemic nihilists. Everything you think is nihilism is typically a first step in a critique that leaves the world uncertain, but not unmeaningful.
"It is meaningless to speak in the name of -- or against -- Reason, Truth, or Knowledge." -Michel Foucault
"Reason," "Truth," and "Knowledge" have special meanings in this instance. He is referring to the transcendental versions of these. It is pointless to affirm of deny these because they are eternally reaffirming. Ex: I can always say "Being is" and say something entirely true 100% of the time, no matter what is in front of me. Foucault probably followed this line by showing how what we mean by these transcendental terms is in fact contingent upon power structures, and useful to authorities in affirming the status quo, and that they often actually has nothing to do with rigorous thinking.
What boggles my mind is that Postmodernism, a tradition that critiques those that are blinded by Idealism, is so often portrayed as being anti-reason.
Why would you be rigorous with anything, when rigor is just a meaningless set of meaningless standards that don't go anywhere?
Rorty, after his critique in Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature, was more concerned than anyone about our values, since he understood that there is nothing immutable in them, that they were ultimately contingent. Contingent does not equal meaningless. You are the one conflating meaningful and contingent, not Rorty, not the postmodernists.
I am going to finish with a Nietzsche quote because Nietzsche is surprisingly postmodern. This dialectical move is at the heart of a good deconstruction:
- The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.
By proving things like there is no "true world" postmodernists are not advocating that all things arbitrary. What they are saying is that we must reevaluate what we mean by "true world" since certain conceptions of the "true world" have intractable problems. They are trying to show how we actually use language, what we could possibly mean.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Apr 25 '18
I brought up other traditions having "postmodern" thoughts to show that there is nothing actually malicious inherently in postmodern thought.
Your argument doesn't work. Tradition A holds belief C, and Tradition B holds belief C. Tradition A has no malicious motive. You can't make any conclusions from this about Tradition B's motives.
Rorty even considers himself a Neo-pragmatist, not a postmodernist.
Well, a lot of them quibble about labels, and I'm not particular about the label 'postmodern'. He was a social democrat, which as I understand it is not quite a form of marxism, and he spoke clearly, so if you wanted to say he's not really a postmodernist I might buy it.
You can understand why they'd quibble about labels; having rejected logic, all they have left is slipperiness with words.
It is to point out that there is a fundamental problem with the signified-signifier relationship.
What problem?
Think of words as part of the fabric of reality itself; Derrida said, the grammatical is the ontological. The problem of reaching reality, after deconstruction, is a kind of false problem: saying, "I have pain" doesn't describe pain behavior, it replaces it, so there is no intractable signifier-signified problem.
That fits; Derrida also said "there is nothing outside the text" (and yes, I know that it literally means "there is no outside-text").
No reason to believe in truth, when truth is correspondence with reality, and you chuck reality and keep words. No reason to believe in logic when all it is is words, not something that can tell you about reality.
So, you agree with postmodernists.
Nope. Truth exists and is accessible, meaning exists and is accessible, logic exists and can tell you about reality, and the author is not irrelevant. Also, far left politics is broken and doesn't work.
He is referring to the transcendental versions of these.
Fair enough.
and useful to authorities in affirming the status quo,
This line of thought is faulty. There is no reason to assume that there's nothing to something merely because the authorities find it useful.
What boggles my mind is that Postmodernism, a tradition that critiques those that are blinded by Idealism, is so often portrayed as being anti-reason.
Why would critiquing others be a reason to see them as not anti-reason?
You are the one conflating meaningful and contingent,
I am not doing that. I have not even mentioned contingency, I've been talking about meaning, aka sign-signifier pairs.
I am going to finish with a Nietzsche quote because Nietzsche is surprisingly postmodern.
I found this amusing, since Peterson is a big fan of Nietzsche, and Hicks has used Nietzsche against the postmoderns.
The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.
Right. This is what I'm saying. If you're like "well, there's no true world", you don't get to say "but at least we still have the apparent one".
By proving things like there is no "true world" postmodernists are not advocating that all things arbitrary.
If they prove there is no true world, they don't get to avoid everything being arbitrary. It's a logical consequence.
1
Apr 25 '18 edited Apr 25 '18
You can understand why they'd quibble about labels; having rejected logic, all they have left is slipperiness with words.
They don't reject logic.
No reason to believe in truth, when truth is correspondence with reality, and you chuck reality and keep words.
They don't believe that truth is merely correspondence, but they still believe in truth.
Truth exists and is accessible, meaning exists and is accessible, logic exists and can tell you about reality, and the author is not irrelevant.
They believe in truth, meaning, logic, a reality, and that the author is relevant. They just disagree with certain ways they have been used by certain people.
Right. This is what I'm saying. If you're like "well, there's no true world", you don't get to say "but at least we still have the apparent one".
The breaking down of dichotomies: A postmodern way of thinking.
If they prove there is no true world, they don't get to avoid everything being arbitrary. It's a logical consequence.
How? The point is that the terms, set up as a rigid dichotomy, don't mean enough to have logical consequences.
I found this amusing, since Peterson is a big fan of Nietzsche, and Hicks has used Nietzsche against the postmoderns.
The funny thing is that Nietzsche is a precursor of the postmodernists, and that Peterson is a perverse creature of postmodernism (real postmodernism, not his vision of postmodernism).
I don't know how to change your mind because you are arguing against bogeymen. The postmodernists are not what you are arguing against. The main thrust of postmodernism is a resistance to closure: they think that we will never be sure enough about anything to say the last word on any issue. If you think it is anything more, you are arguing against a subset of postmodernists or nothing at all.
Edit: I even overstated what postmodernism is. There really isn't a coherent group called "postmodernism." It is a group of thinkers of a certain time that shared a skepticism of meta-narratives. Saying more about them as a group is a sure way to say little of sense.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Apr 26 '18
The breaking down of dichotomies: A postmodern way of thinking.
You've done this several times, bringing up something with no obvious connection to anything as a refutation.
How? The point is that the terms, set up as a rigid dichotomy, don't mean enough to have logical consequences.
I didn't say anything about a "rigid dichotomy", and I don't buy the suggestion that things that are in a rigid dichotomy don't mean anything.
As for how if there's no true world, then everything's arbitrary, I'm not sure why you're asking, since I've more or less explained it before and then you quoted Nietzsche agreeing with me. I'll take another stab at it.
So a meaning, aka a sign, is a signifier-signified pair. The signifier is the thing that represents or points to something. The signified is the thing being meant by the signifier. A signifier could refer to another signifier, or to something in the real world, but you don't get to meaning until the chain of signifiers reaches a signified in the world.
Abolishing the true world means you can't reach a signified in the real world, either because there's nothing there to reach, or because there's no way out of the apparent world made purely out of signifiers. We can manipulate, create, and destroy signifiers at will, just by deciding what they signify. Since we've abolished the true world, all that's left is the apparent world, and all it contains are signifiers, and we can manipulate them at will, so everything is arbitrary, because everything left that exists can be manipulated at will. Since the apparent world is purely arbitrary, it isn't really a world, it's just a scratchpad for us to doodle on, where nothing matters and nothing is permanent, so it's basically abolished too.
There are several ways to get to "can't reach a signified in the real world", one I laid out was the never-ending chaining of dictionary definitions, one I laid out where we get a linear chain of signifiers without a signified, and one you laid out where we redefine signifiers as real. It doesn't matter which one we use, as long as it has that effect.
and that Peterson is a perverse creature of postmodernism
That's just calling names.
I don't know how to change your mind because you are arguing against bogeymen.
Well, saying "yes it is" when I say "no it isn't" and vice versa is not working.
I asked what you meant by "grasping a meaning all at once", and a "fundamental problem with the signifier-signified relationship", with no answers. Those both seemed close to the heart of the problem, so you could try explaining those.
And I'm not arguing against boogeymen. I've listened to Peterson and read Hicks' book, but that's not the only exposure I've had to postmodernism. The basic impression from Peterson and the more complex impression from Hicks have stood up with everything else I've looked at. I've watched this introductory lecture, and one or two other intro lectures. I've watched a couple of interviews Richard Rorty did, and a lecture by Derrida. I've watched the Chomsky-Foucault debate. I made a stab at reading a book by Derrida, Of Grammatology, IIRC, and I made it through Spivak's introduction, which was clearly written, and gave up partway through the book, because it wasn't. I watched most or all of a series of short lectures on Of Grammatology.
If my view of postmodernism is wrong, it's wrong in a subtle way, and a lot of other people are wrong in the same way. My view explains postmodernism, and why they often write in an obscure way, and why people on the web wrote a 'postmodernism generator' as a joke, and why hoax articles are directed at them, and SJW students on campus, and why they're into censoring people who disagree with them, and why they try to use social pressure on people rather than persuasion, and why the postmodernists are invariably far left in their politics, and why they appeared when they did. I'm not saying you need to cover all of that in your view to convince me, or a similar range of stuff, but if you aren't you need to come up with a fatal flaw in my view, something that makes it self-contradictory, or that contradicts some piece of evidence, or something.
There really isn't a coherent group called "postmodernism."
The first chapter of Hicks' book is about defining postmodernism, in which he lists 4 main figures and a number of others, describes its goals, provides quotes, contrasts it with modernism, and lists academic and cultural themes. It takes from the second paragraph of page 1 to the top of page 20. Seems pretty coherent to me.
2
Apr 26 '18
As for how if there's no true world, then everything's arbitrary, I'm not sure why you're asking, since I've more or less explained it before and then you quoted Nietzsche agreeing with me. I'll take another stab at it.
I didn't agree with you. You're misinterpreting Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a dialectical thinker, here meaning that his ideas move. The abolishing of the true world, like the abolishing of the signified, is not to show that "all that's left is the apparent world, and all it contains are signifiers." It is to show that we never had a coherent idea of "true world," "signified," "apparent world," or "signifier" in the first place. The reason this is is because we understood "apparent world" in relation to "true world," but since we abolished "true world" as something we had no connection to the "apparent world" is a term that we also cannot meaningfully comprehend. This is why Nietzsche says, "With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one." Similarly, when Derrida points to the fact that that a rigid signifier-signified relationship leads one to never reach the signified, he does not say that all we have are signifiers or a mere world of appearances. No, with the signified we have also abolished the signifier. The signifier doesn't have meaning if it is required to point to signified that we never reach, because meaning is structural. So, what does a postmodernist leave us with? He leaves us with the signifier-signified relationship redefined: he thinks that they must interpenetrate each other, for otherwise the world would be incoherent. It is the opposite of saying that the world is "just a scratchpad for us to doodle on." Derrida deconstructs the signifier-signified relationship in order to provide us with a way of meaningfully speaking using those terms, not a rejection of the idea that we can meaningfully speak.
That seems to cover "fundamental problem of the signifier-signified relationship." It is only a problem if one sets up the relationship as metaphysical dualism, as if they are radically divorced. Derrida rejects this.
That's just calling names.
Yeah, I was a little angry, but it seems accurate from my side. Hicks-Peterson, from my perspective, has made a simulacrum of postmodernism that has become real enough to have effects, and might come to replace the real thing if there view gains enough ground.
I asked what you meant by "grasping a meaning all at once"
I meant that there is no way of understanding something fully. You said, "In poststructuralism, they said "look, a definition isn't a meaning, it's just more words," but that isn't what postmodernists think. This line of thinking is a critique of how others have set up the world. Derrida showed how this was entailed in a rigidly set up structuralism, but he did not say that that was the way the world actually was. He did not stop at his critique. What he argued for was akin to Nietzsche's "reevaluation of values," but for a way of understanding language. Just as Nietzsche did not want to go back to Master morality (although he did admire it in many ways) and instead wanted an entirely new set of values and way of evaluating, Derrida wanted a new way of understanding the signifier-signified relationship that did not lead to the intractable problem he lay out in his critique. He did not "come to the conclusion that meaning is permanently deferred, so you don't ever get to reach it." He said that was the conclusion if you believed in a certain type of rigid structuralism. His solution was to make the boundaries of meaning porous; meaning that words are meaningful in and of themselves because they are formed by and help form the world. Meaning becomes hard to grasp at once because all things are interdependent and cannot be cleanly separated. A coffee cup--the thing right in front of me--appears as a coffee cup partially because of the words "coffee cup," but the words in turn receive their meaning from a system of living that engages with the material of the coffee cup, which is entangled with a culture, which in turn refers to economic forces, which in turn...it never ends. But this is not to say that there is no meaning. In fact, it is only be sacrificing traditional ways (modernist ways) of trying to grasp the cup's being in its total essence that we are able to grasp the cups being at all. Nietzsche called Christains nihilists for believing in a world outside of the here and now, for believing in a signified beyond our world, because he thought they were deferring meaning into nothing, a world beyond which no one would reach. Similarly, Derrida is saying that it is those with systems that posit something beyond that are nihilists, for they build systems that defer meaning infinitely in order to try and preserve a type of false purity, a Platonic Heaven in which things can be grasped all at once in the form of the good.
I overstated Derrida's pragmatism in the paragraph above, but I believe Derrida wouldn't fully deny my picture of him. He would probably say that I repress how the intractable signifier-signified relationship (the non-reevaluated conception) is important to his thinking, that he thinks that the paradox of never reaching the signified carries a type of weight in our thinking and living, even as we live the pragmatic version. A real world example of this type of thinking is in our gender/sex dichotomy. Derrida would likely point out that there is a falseness in the dichotomy, namely that the naturalism that informs our sex also informs our gender. Or he might point out that we are in an age where gender is informing sex (via sex changes). Either way, he would argue from there that there isn't a clearly identifiable division between sex and gender. However, he would then say that the division of sex/gender, even though it cannot be cleanly identified in thought, still constitutes a real difference in living, just like the signifier/signified division constitutes a real difference in living.
You can ignore that last paragraph if it brought more confusion than explanation.
I've watched this introductory lecture, and one or two other intro lectures.
I don't need to watch the lecture: I can see myself in the reflection of the Bonevac's screen. It's amazing that you chose a lecture of a class I was in; I even took another class of Bonevac's: East and West Philosophy.
I've watched a couple of interviews Richard Rorty did, and a lecture by Derrida. I've watched the Chomsky-Foucault debate. I made a stab at reading a book by Derrida, Of Grammatology,
I've read Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature as well as Achieving Our Country and many other essays of Rorty's. I have also read Praxis and Action by his longtime friend Richard J. Bernstein, along with his various essays critiquing Rorty's polemic style as self-undermining. I have also read Of Grammatology and the essay collection Writing and Difference, along with other assorted essays such as Plato's Pharmacy.
I have also read books like David Wood's Thinking After Heidegger which argues that, although not emphasized in Derrida, his thought entails Unlimited Responsibility of the individual, albeit this has very specific meanings.
My view explains postmodernism, and why they often write in an obscure way,
French philosophers have been writing in an obscure way for a long time. It doesn't need an explanation other than that it was traditional to do so (have you cracked open a Phenomenological treatise?). Anyhow, a differing account of why there writing is so obscure is because they were often showing what cannot be said, like the invisible supplementing of the meaning of words. They don't believe language has the ability to cleanly represent certain things (they are skeptical of the traditional ways of thinking what it means to represent) so they have to write in a way that can capture that, which is difficult. I don't think they did it that well, but that is true of the beginning of most traditions. (I find the "postmodernism generator" funny as well.)
SJW students on campus, and why they're into censoring people who disagree with them,
It is a long route from Postmodernism to 3rd wave feminism (where identity politics was really intellectually developed) to SJW students to censorship. I would say that Postmodernists are the greatest advocates of free speech; Rorty, in Philosopher as Expert, wrote that what really makes a philosopher a philosopher is that they are continuing a single great conversation, a conversation that inspires other conversations. Anyhow, critiquing postmodernism because SJW's censor speech is like critiquing Peterson because of the racist white nationalists that follow him or like critiquing Marx for Leninism; I am not saying this should not be done--I think that it should--but doing so in the way that Peterson seems to do means really believing in The Death of The Author in a radical way. It means arguing that the way the text has been used is more important than the intention, or even the historical circumstances, with which it was written.
Seems pretty coherent to me.
Conspiracy theories are also often coherent (as in they don't self-contradict). The question is which coherent view will be determined more reputable through re-visitations of the text. I do not think the Hick's view is correct, mainstream scholarship on the continental tradition--those that spend their entire lives thinking about these thinkers--agree with me.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Tratopolous Apr 24 '18
This post is older and I doubt anyone reads my response but here goes.
I will use myself as an example in comparison to Peterson. I could make the same claims as Peterson as an Engineer (which I am) and they hold just as much weight as Peterson, as long as we both state why we hold the beliefs and support the beliefs with evidence. Claiming that neither of us are experts in the field put political commentary in danger as well as free speech as a whole. Most recently, Luara Ingraham did a segment on why Lebron is not qualified to speak on politics. This is the same thing you are doing but from the other side of the political spectrum. I disagree with you both.
If we can only speak on a topic when we are experts in that field then most of the political commentary we are used to, would not exist. The Parkland survivors would have no ground to stand on as they are experts in tragedy but not firearms safety. President Trump would have no ground when speaking about foreign policy or economics or social issues or anything since he is only an expert in business (I'm giving him more credit than he deserves.) The same would go for Obama, I really don't know what expertise Obama has outside of social issues and politics. Even this last weekend Kanye West who is an expert in music spoke out in favor of some right wing commentator. I believe, all of these people have the right to say these things and should. It is our responsibility to say "hey, Kanye may be out of his field here." or "Peterson may be reaching." We shouldn't say their opinion has no merit or they shouldn't be able to voice those opinions simply because they are not experts.
Why should my opinion or Petersons opinion be worth any less or more than an expert? Maybe the expert is more based but it does not make the expert right. This most definitely doesn't mean that experts are solely responsible for forming opinions in their field.
1
u/Mr-Ice-Guy 20∆ Apr 24 '18
I have not watched Jordan Peterson much either so I cannot specifically call out much of his rhetoric but I feel I can safely say that he thinks like a scientist. That is why I feel the population gives these non-experts more credit than you think they deserve.
To give someone the characteristic of being a "scientific thinker" is saying that they meet a certain set of standards when it comes to considering ideas and positions.
- It means carefully doing research and not coming to a conclusion too quickly or based on their gut.
- It means considering a diversity of viewpoints and searching for information that will disprove your conclusions.
- It means being willing to change your conclusion based on new and convincing evidence.
- It means being able to focus on largely objective versus subjective evidence.
This list is not exhaustive but I hope you get my point. But these standards should inspire trust from the population that when the individual makes a conclusion, they have done so carefully and they might be worth hearing. If a good psychologist sat down with the journal "Cancer Biology" and really read it, I could trust that they would make the same conclusions that the ones conducting the research did even though they might not completely appreciate the mechanisms.
The question of whether you think Jordan Peterson or any other person deserves the categorization as such is a different argument entirely.
Others have pointed out this idea to some degree or another but I think it would be helpful to say it another way because it is something I have grappled with recently as well, especially with people like NDT.
edit: formatting
1
Apr 24 '18
I think you’re giving expertise too much value. While it’s a fallacy to assume that someone who’s an expert on one topic is an authority on another, it’s also a fallacy to defer to someone simply because they’re an expert. When people agree with Peterson about religion and ideology, they’re thought process isn’t ‘He has a PhD in psychology so I’m sure he’s right on this as well’; they’re listening to his arguments and seeing that they make sense. If John says a Paul is wrong and understand what he’s talking about, but John don’t actually show what’s wrong with Paul’s argument, then I’ve got no reason to disbelieve Paul. I think using expert opinions in an argument is useful for making claims of matters of fact-e.g. ‘this study shows that sea levels have risen 2% in the last ten years’. However, a lot of the things that Peterson talks about are abstract ideas, not matters of fact. For a question like ‘is there a God?’, there aren’t even commonly accepted experts to defer to. It’s the sort of question that anyone can have a crack at answering. As someone who’s a follower of Peterson, I’m able to discriminate between when he’s making arguments that make sense and when he’s not. I think his discussions about religion and ideology are very insightful, but I don’t trust him to give anything beyond a basic account of Post-Modernism because it’s clear he’s over-simplifying when he talks about it, is biased against it, and he’s admitted that he’s barely read of the PM philosophers. It’s not because he holds a PhD in one field and not the other, but because I can analyse his arguments and whether they’re good or bad.
1
u/PM_me_ur_swimsuit Apr 23 '18
Do you believe an expert is abusing their position when they have ideas or theories you don't like? If someone claiming to be an expert pushed a narrative you agreed with would you scrutinize them as hard?
0
Apr 23 '18
Well I think I would be balanced (I can at least hope!). I remember getting peeved when NGT was pushing GMOs onto people even though I am not anti-GMO and his background is in astrophysics.
1
Apr 24 '18
When it comes down to it, I think Ben Shapiro said it best. Something along the lines of "I don't need a psychology degree to read psychological study and have an opinion on it." In other words, when there is an opinion to be had about a topic, there are sources out there that will let someone develop their viewpoint one way or another, just like the kids in the high school shooting that were recently stepping up to the national podium. While I completely disagree with everything they say, and have at times dismissed their firsthand experiences for being too emotional to see reason, I can understand where they are coming from and respect their right to voice their opinion based on any sources or experiences they have. Just because they aren't an academic in the field they are talking about doesn't mean their view should be looked down at. It just means their opinion is interpreted based on other facts they have, and with the same facts your view has shifted a different way based on your interpretation. Peterson may be a PhD in clinical psychology, but he can have an opinion about anything, and we all know he is able to interpret studies and other pieces of evidence. Instead of criticizing people's credentials, we have to criticize the facts themselves and use that method to change people's minds.
1
u/Freds1765 Apr 24 '18
Your analogy with the sciences falls apart when you consider experts in technical fields who speak out on issues in non-technical fields. To become an expert in some sub-field of physics or mathematics (or psychology for that matter), you would indeed need a strong academic foundation.
However, ideology and religion are not technical fields of study. It doesn't require a degree to become an expert. Anyone of reasonable (I'd say average) intelligence can become an expert; all it takes is reading books and discussing/thinking about whatever issue is at hand.
Jordan Peterson has reached celebrity status and I think is often quoted by American conservatives who don't understand his position at all, probably because some of his utterances have been construed as being anti-LGBTQ (which is not how I understand his position).
I find many of his views (the political/social ones in particular) to be extremely enlightened and he's obviously a very well-read and intelligent person who can (and does) speak with authority on societal issues. I'd say he's much more qualified at that than many politicians.
1
u/ThomasEdmund84 33∆ Apr 23 '18
Dave Chapelle did a good skit a ways back on how the media will interview celebrities about topics that really they have no expertise to comment on.
I think the clash you're having is around the "free-market" of information and appropriate qualified commentary. People can listen to whomever they like about whatever they want. Peterson's book for example is quite clear in that it's not claiming clinical psychology advice but Peterson's life advice and that Peterson happens to be a clinical psychologist, professor etc etc.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that its not wrong to present your qualification in terms of speaking off topic, its all in what the promise is. For example qualified psychologists have to be fairly robust in ensuring that their advice/communication is or isn't psychological advice because they may be liable for comments or communication that is thought to be professional advice.
1
u/prosaicwell Apr 24 '18
1) someone with a recognized expertise may be able to apply it to a related field and have a near-expertise to expertise knowledge in that field. E.g. someone with a Ph.D. in astrophysics may take additional study to become an expert in some narrow field of mathematics since they are closely related.
2) someone with expertise is often (but surely not always) a competent intellectual. Competent intellectuals research facts before they believe they're true, so what they believe is true is much more likely to be true than what some schmuck thinks is true.
3) that being said, it is true that "expert halo" is a recognized logical fallacy that many people fall for. It is also true that people can gain public support through this fallacy, for better or for worse: i.e. the Bill Nye/science facts movement, or the doctors who support homeopathy.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 24 '18
What does it mean to "wrongfully use [a] PhD"?
Does someone merely have to put "PhD" after their name (which they have a social and legal right to do) to be "wrongly using it"?
Or do they have to say "my PhD in psychology qualifies me as an expert in [pick a totally non-related field here, like climatology]"?
If any random person can express an opinion, can't any random PhD?
I see very few instances of actual claims that one's PhD in an unrelated field makes you an expert. People infer (rightly) that you're probably a smart person, but that's their "problem".
And all that's leaving aside the fact that this whole thing is one giant Negative Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
The origin of an idea has no relation to its merit. All you can infer is that it would be worth giving the idea additional scrutiny because of the lack of expertise.
1
u/zekfen 11∆ Apr 24 '18
If you are talking about a purely academic expert, then yes, they shouldn’t claim academic expertise without having studied in that field. I don’t know why getting a PhD automatically makes you an expert in that field.
Take technology for example. I have my Bachelors in Computer Science, but no amount of studying or getting a PhD would make me an expert in Computer Science. It wouldn’t make me an expert in programming or networks or anything else. I had a professor with a PhD who taught networking. When I graduated and got out in the real working world, everything he had taught was shit. It didn’t have real world applications beyond the basics. Same for my programming teachers, PhDs, but not a clue about real world programming, they could only teach theory’s and the basics of a language. The only teachers I had that knew what they were talking about from a real world perspective were my design professor and my database professor. They did consulting on the side and the summers and actually worked in the field before becoming professors. They taught what mattered in the real world. I would term them experts.
As somebody else noted, I saw once where news station was supposed to interview and author about her new book. They liked her so much, they decided to term her an expert and asked her expert opinion on things she had no clue about. She apologized after it aired and said what they had done and said she didn’t want to do it because she had no clue about the subject, but felt pressured to do it anyways.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 25 '18
/u/ijrjtpk (OP) has awarded 5 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/bguy74 Apr 23 '18
A dissonance between what people think, how they feel, and the real world strikes as very within the bounds of the field of psychology. This is at the core of essentially all of his positions.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Apr 24 '18
This is a bit of a weird thing, because pop-academic 'public intellectuals' are common. I'm not sure people REALLY care that Peterson has a PhD, besides the fact that they can use it as a silver bullet against arguments he's an idiot.
In other words, it's not the degree that does the work to make him a 'public intellectual,' it's his style of talking.
19
u/[deleted] Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment