Let me start by making this bold assertion: if you aren’t exquisitely sensitive to the phenomenon described below, then you have zero chance at being intellectually wise in life. Zero. Most of the examples of the phenomenon I give here are simple and straightforward. But they are merely the obvious...
Many people think he is a guru, full of wisdom on how to live one’s life. Others think he is a villain, actively causing harm in the world with his false and pernicious opinions. They are both wrong, as is Peterson himself occasionally. Thinking through the Peterson phenomenon is useful...
A knockdown argument is one that is indisputable, or virtually so. It has premises and a conclusion. There is no reasonable way to object to the premises’ truth; they are obviously true. And there is no way to argue with the logic of the argument: it’s obvious that if the...
Let me start by making this bold assertion: if you aren’t exquisitely sensitive to the phenomenon described below, then you have zero chance at being intellectually wise in life. Zero.
Most of the examples of the phenomenon I give here are simple and straightforward. But they are merely the obvious tip of a complex iceberg.
Do we have free will?
That’s the type of question one might ask an AI chatbot these days. People think it’s a deep, profound question. I agree—sort of. Since humans have failed to answer it, many people think we might as well ask artificial intelligence. Well, no.
Although a chatbot will offer an answer to the question, no competent philosopher will.... (read 3529 more words →)
Thanks for your reply. I agree that we should avoid political topics here. That's why I didn't discuss any of his political, moral, or religious views. It was all about how we treat expertise, as you mentioned.
Many people think he is a guru, full of wisdom on how to live one’s life. Others think he is a villain, actively causing harm in the world with his false and pernicious opinions. They are both wrong, as is Peterson himself occasionally. Thinking through the Peterson phenomenon is useful for illustrating 13 key lessons for intellectual wisdom. Oddly enough, we won’t need to address even one particular thing he has said or written.
****
His supporters often talk about how much benefit he has done to the world. They point out the fact that he has inspired many thousands of young people, primarily male, to get their acts together and start living lives... (read 2672 more words →)
Thanks for the comment. I don't think there is any mistake in basic logic. I could formalize all of it in elementary symbolic logic. It would be first-order predicate logic, but still pretty basic.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm not sure that in order for an argument to be knockdown, there has to be a contrary belief. I might give a new, conclusive argument for a conclusion C that is so new that no one has ever disbelieved it (e.g., perhaps some claim about dark energy, a couple decades ago).
But in any case, if you were right, then the TS arguments wouldn't be knockdown, which is response 2 to the paradox.
'Taylor Swift is or is not human' is short for 'Either Taylor Swift is human or it's not the case that Taylor Swift is human', which is a logical truth on anyone's conception of logic.
A knockdown argument is one that is indisputable, or virtually so. It has premises and a conclusion. There is no reasonable way to object to the premises’ truth; they are obviously true. And there is no way to argue with the logic of the argument: it’s obvious that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true too. Hence, we can conclude with all confidence that the conclusion is true too.
That sounds on the right track. But it’s not hard to uncover a paradox at the heart of the notion of a knockdown argument.
Consider the TS1 argument ‘Taylor Swift is or is not human; hence, 1 = 1 or 1 ≠... (read 2200 more words →)
I have taught logic classes at several universities. I am assuming that as I am using it in the post, "TS either is or is not human" is logically true. It doesn't matter if there are viable interpretations of it that aren't logically true. I thought it was clear that I was using the sentence to express a logical truth. All I need in the argument is the premise that it can express a logical truth. Almost everyone agrees with that premise, especially since "Taylor Swift" has a referent.