你们怎么知道Peterson的？
来自: YUSKI 2018-02-08 12:42:48
我老婆曾经在他实验室做RA。很早她就说Peterson在UT是很火的老师，难选上课。
我做过两年华人小报编辑，我老婆联系有一次约好要采访他（12年），因为他那时在搞一个海洋环保的project，而正好赶上多伦多禁止销售鱼翅，华人社区闹得很厉害。那时我也挺左的，由于版面登了太多挺禁的人（包括那个Sharkwater纪录片的制作人也聊了），Peterson采访就被老板禁止了（可惜），因为华人MP都反对，而小报也靠华人MP们撑门面...就不得不登了一些保守党的采访。其实很多环保主义也是极左的，Peterson搞这个项目也没什么下文，猜可能也想通了这不靠谱了？
后来也没关注过他，但因为我一直在听Sam Harris的podcast，去年1月听了他和Sam Harris的两期podcast才觉得他关于科学、Truth、以及神话的观点很吸引我。作为一个多年道金斯铁粉，我开始了反思......我后来读了maps of meaning（老婆当时的教科书）以及看了一些他personality 课的视频，收益匪浅，感觉自己17年思想上有了很多变化，虽然不是100%同意Peterson的一些关于宗教的观点。
17年一年，Peterson在世界上火了，却是因为在政治议题上....观点上其实他和Dawkins、Sam Harris包括Steven Pinker等人立场其实都差不多，Peterson可能更生猛点。反后现代主义在科学圈子一直有人在喊，连乔姆斯基这种无政府主义者从70年代起就反对后现代主义、法兰克福学派、Neo-marxism ，但都是雷声大雨点小，这次可算被Peterson把议题炒热了，当然互联网的传播力也助力不少。
最赞回应
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Larry 2018-02-25 08:38:07
I learned about Dr. Peterson from his opposition to Bill C-16. It is exactly what he said, that I 'came for the scandal and stayed for the content.' Just to comment on YUSKI's last paragraph, I do not think Peterson has similar positions to Dawkins, Harris and Pinker. He reiterated in many occasions that Dawkins and Harris are rationalists who think they are Darwinians. He considers himself a Darwinian largely due to his work in decyphering mythology. So, yes, perhaps Peterson and Dawkins are both against postmodernism, but they have fundamentally different rationales and world views.
来自 豆瓣App -
-
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-09 00:05:55
I learned about Dr. Peterson from his opposition to Bill C-16. It is exactly what he said, I learned about Dr. Peterson from his opposition to Bill C-16. It is exactly what he said, that I 'came for the scandal and stayed for the content.' Just to comment on YUSKI's last paragraph, I do not think Peterson has similar positions to Dawkins, Harris and Pinker. He reiterated in many occasions that Dawkins and Harris are rationalists who think they are Darwinians. He considers himself a Darwinian largely due to his work in decyphering mythology. So, yes, perhaps Peterson and Dawkins are both against postmodernism, but they have fundamentally different rationales and world views. ... LarryI know they are different in their view on religion as well as fundamental perception on what constitute truth and object world. But they are agreed on the classical liberal idea of free speech. I also think they all agree that the scientific method,rather than ideology, should serve as primarily tool to approach complex social problem such as gender difference.
-
-
Larry 2018-03-15 07:38:23
I know they are different in their view on religion as well as fundamental perception on w I know they are different in their view on religion as well as fundamental perception on what constitute truth and object world. But they are agreed on the classical liberal idea of free speech. I also think they all agree that the scientific method,rather than ideology, should serve as primarily tool to approach complex social problem such as gender difference. ... YUSKITo the best of my understanding, Dr. Peterson views science as a tool for certain levels of analysis. To paraphrase his words, it is a useful tool, but not the only tool. Ideology for him, however, is a rather horrible tool. His position is that ideology is not remotely comparable to religion in terms of complexity and function in light of his research into archetypal stories in mythology. Hence, according to what I have heard and read of him, he rarely, or perhaps never, compares science and ideology. Rather often, he would compare science and religion, and ideology and religion. To come back to the latter part of your assersion, I would kindly disagree and suggest that he does regard science as a useful tool, especially evolutionary psychology that he has explicitly iterated that his analyses are in line with, but he does not consider science the only tool, or maybe even the most important tool, e.g. in one of his lectures he mentioned that scientists are only scientific in their labs, and once they leave their labs, science becomes a secondary tool for them to make sense of the world. He seems to suggest things we could learn from archetypal stories in old texts like the Bible are better tools for us to navigate the world for evolutionarily speaking we are the very embodiment of ideals from those stories. We have decided to act out those ideals, and now we are trying to understand why.
来自 豆瓣App -
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-15 19:39:15
To the best of my understanding, Dr. Peterson views science as a tool for certain levels o To the best of my understanding, Dr. Peterson views science as a tool for certain levels of analysis. To paraphrase his words, it is a useful tool, but not the only tool. Ideology for him, however, is a rather horrible tool. His position is that ideology is not remotely comparable to religion in terms of complexity and function in light of his research into archetypal stories in mythology. Hence, according to what I have heard and read of him, he rarely, or perhaps never, compares science and ideology. Rather often, he would compare science and religion, and ideology and religion. To come back to the latter part of your assersion, I would kindly disagree and suggest that he does regard science as a useful tool, especially evolutionary psychology that he has explicitly iterated that his analyses are in line with, but he does not consider science the only tool, or maybe even the most important tool, e.g. in one of his lectures he mentioned that scientists are only scientific in their labs, and once they leave their labs, science becomes a secondary tool for them to make sense of the world. He seems to suggest things we could learn from archetypal stories in old texts like the Bible are better tools for us to navigate the world for evolutionarily speaking we are the very embodiment of ideals from those stories. We have decided to act out those ideals, and now we are trying to understand why. ... LarryMy understanding of Peterson is very similar as yours. I don't know why you think I would consider scientific method is the only tool. I said scientific method should be used when discussing complex social problem. That is part of reason that Peterson despise post-modernism that denies reason and ignore careful analysis of stats. It is also why, in his book, he included over 200 citations to support his claim. And in various interview, he have to explain the overlap and extreme in the stats of gender differences. To me, this is scientific method, and he does consider, and claimed he is a scientist.
-
Larry 2018-03-15 22:59:12
My understanding of Peterson is very similar as yours. I don't know why you think I would My understanding of Peterson is very similar as yours. I don't know why you think I would consider scientific method is the only tool. I said scientific method should be used when discussing complex social problem. That is part of reason that Peterson despise post-modernism that denies reason and ignore careful analysis of stats. It is also why, in his book, he included over 200 citations to support his claim. And in various interview, he have to explain the overlap and extreme in the stats of gender differences. To me, this is scientific method, and he does consider, and claimed he is a scientist. ... YUSKII do not think I have implied that you considered that the "scientific method is the only tool." I thought we were discussing Dr. Peterson's views. I think I have mainly argued against your asserssion that Dr. Peterson considers science "as a *primary* tool to approach complex social problems."
来自 豆瓣App -
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-15 23:14:54
I do not think I have implied that you considered that the "scientific method is the only I do not think I have implied that you considered that the "scientific method is the only tool." I thought we were discussing Dr. Peterson's views. I think I have mainly argued against your asserssion that Dr. Peterson considers science "as a *primary* tool to approach complex social problems." ... LarryI do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL ISSUES such as gender difference. You can't argue gender difference, within the context of current gender debate, from metaphysics or epistemology or faith, you based off your argument on stats and experiments. That's exactly what he did in his book and interview and lectures. I agree with him that we don't perceive things as what it is , but how we will act. But when we discuss things fall into the realm of science (i.e.whether there is gender differences ), science should be applied.
-
Larry 2018-03-15 23:43:49
I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL ISSUES such as gender difference. You can't argue gender difference, within the context of current gender debate, from metaphysics or epistemology or faith, you based off your argument on stats and experiments. That's exactly what he did in his book and interview and lectures. I agree with him that we don't perceive things as what it is , but how we will act. But when we discuss things fall into the realm of science (i.e.whether there is gender differences ), science should be applied. ... YUSKIOne of the themes of Dr. Peterson's is that analyses can be done on different levels. He reiterated in many occasions that science can provide some levels of analyses. Another theme of his is pragmatism with respect to analyses, that is, just because an analysis can be done does not mean it is useful. There is a strong religious undertone in his views. Thus, from his perspective, there are arguably more useful tools for human beings to tackle the world's most pressing problems. He has made it clear, for example, in his introduction to his Bible series. https://www.jordanbpeterson/bible-series/ Notice how he differentiates knowledge derived from archetypal stories, from history and science; and emphasizes its psychological and social significance.
来自 豆瓣App -
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-16 02:38:21
One of the themes of Dr. Peterson's is that analyses can be done on different levels. He r One of the themes of Dr. Peterson's is that analyses can be done on different levels. He reiterated in many occasions that science can provide some levels of analyses. Another theme of his is pragmatism with respect to analyses, that is, just because an analysis can be done does not mean it is useful. There is a strong religious undertone in his views. Thus, from his perspective, there are arguably more useful tools for human beings to tackle the world's most pressing problems. He has made it clear, for example, in his introduction to his Bible series. https://www.jordanbpeterson/bible-series/ Notice how he differentiates knowledge derived from archetypal stories, from history and science; and emphasizes its psychological and social significance. ... LarryI am not so sure why you are avoiding to address my point directly. There are things falls in that narrow domain of science and science should be applied. I am not saying that science should be applied exclusively. I think I made my point very clear and I gave you a specific example. I read Peterson extensively (Including maps of meaning ), and I am fully aware and agree his view on science and religion.
-
Larry 2018-03-16 09:30:27
I am not so sure why you are avoiding to address my point directly. There are things falls I am not so sure why you are avoiding to address my point directly. There are things falls in that narrow domain of science and science should be applied. I am not saying that science should be applied exclusively. I think I made my point very clear and I gave you a specific example. I read Peterson extensively (Including maps of meaning ), and I am fully aware and agree his view on science and religion. ... YUSKII think Dr. Peterson would argue that nothing falls into the narrow domain of science. Take gender differences as an example. Different levels of analyses can be done in biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, linguistics, law, politics, economics, philosophy, theology, and the list goes on. We know that many of them, which generally fall into humanities and social science, are, according to Dr. Peterson, not science at all. He pointed out that often what we are trying to do is to figure out which level of analysis should apply, and suggested that often it has already been chosen for us without us knowing it consciously; and often it is not science. Regarding his position on gender differences, he would not have cared more had not the implications of identity politics been detrimental to, say, free speech. For him, ideals like this are not derivatives of science but something else. This theological underpinning is what drives him to use one tool or another, be it science or not, to act out in the world, including defending free speech in the context of Bill C-16.
-
-
-
-
Mitsuo (邪魔はさせない) 2018-06-15 09:18:59
I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL ISSUES such as gender difference. You can't argue gender difference, within the context of current gender debate, from metaphysics or epistemology or faith, you based off your argument on stats and experiments. That's exactly what he did in his book and interview and lectures. I agree with him that we don't perceive things as what it is , but how we will act. But when we discuss things fall into the realm of science (i.e.whether there is gender differences ), science should be applied. ... YUSKI道金斯铁粉+1路过 欢迎指正：https://www.douban.com/doulist/9678379/ ：）
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
你的回应
回应请先 登录 , 或 注册
最新讨论 ( 更多 )
- 有没有人想讨论讨论Peterson今年的经历 (临期熊猫🐼)
- 转卖jp网站上的self-authoring套装 (菇菇国王)
- 你们怎么知道Peterson的？ (YUSKI)
- 打扰了，求一个小伙伴合买个self authoring (MikeRival)
- Dr. Jordan Peterson 群 (Van)
