LogFAQs > #896211775

Balrog0 posted...

the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence

as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.

And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument.
---

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg