Public Service is my Motto.
- Nov 2, 2017
- Reaction score
No. It only appears oxymoronic to someone vested in a belief system (as Peterson employs the label) that takes the socio-political dimension of collective human existence to be the fundamental context for addressing the entirety of all human existence.... The idea of an apolitical belief system is something of an oxymoron, surely? ...
I was responding to your post #447, which I read to be suggesting that politics is something which happens over here, and science is something which happens over there, and there is a clear distinction between the two. If that's not what you meant, might you be willing to clarify?I don't see the point in that post.
I assume you have watched many of Peterson's early talks (it would be strange if you haven't, considering your opinion of the author) and do realise that he is talking about behaviour and motivation.
You appear to be implying that one's view on a subject must be conditional on the political view you hold.
is this so ?
Ok, so who's an actual scientist? It might seem straightforward, but again that's a massively political question. Who gets to wear that mantle?The science of... actual scientists?
Ah, I hadn't realised that Peterson had co-opted the term as a specific label for a particular concept. That said, though, it seems to me something of a quixotic mission to try and understand human existence without accounting for its socio-political dimension. (And, again, I'm using 'politics' in the broad sense of how human beings interact with one another in large groups - thanks, BTW, for reminding me of the importance of being clear about how we define terms.)No. It only appears oxymoronic to someone vested in a belief system (as Peterson employs the label) that takes the socio-political dimension of collective human existence to be the fundamental context for addressing the entirety of all human existence.
It depends who's asking.Ok, so who's an actual scientist? It might seem straightforward, but again that's a massively political question. Who gets to wear that mantle?
Do you mean people who work their way up from undergraduate degrees through postgraduate qualifications to post-doctoral status and beyond? That pool tends to be drawn initially from people who are encouraged to work towards academic success while they are still at school. Can you think of any groups for whom that might be more or less likely?
Now do the same thought experiment for people likely to be able to manage the debts inherent with attending university to obtain a first degree. Now, do the same again for the likely background of people who can afford to continue on to postgraduate study, or manage on the casualised working conditions that so many academics have had imposed upon them. At what point do you begin to notice anything, and what do you notice?
Or maybe you were thinking about people who have their research peer-reviewed and published? How do papers get accepted for review in the first place? What do you think is the overwhelming profile of the journal editors who make that decision? What conscious and unconscious biases do you think might influence their decision-making?
What language do research papers have to be written in to make an impact on the global stage? What conscious or unconscious biases might native-speaker editors have against the English written by non-native speakers? What obstacles might be faced by academics who need to have their work translated into English? How do they fund the translations?
These questions are endless. And they are all profoundly political.
Who is an actual scientist?
Yes, no, sorta ... I'd put it this way ... Peterson set out to explore "belief" in its most general / universal form, and his results were intended all along to contribute to understanding the composite / aggregate "belief systems" we attribute to each other.Ah, I hadn't realised that Peterson had co-opted the term as a specific label for a particular concept. ...
Agreed, but ... It also depends on who's being asked, as I hope to explain below ...It depends who's asking.
Here's the terminological and conceptual issue that most people don't recognize at all ...Academics tend to accept only those fellow members of the club, those with the requisite post-nominal scrabble, a few published papers and the links with industry that tend to be developed as a result.
The media tend to follow the academics' lead, but they're more likely to adorn the title 'scientist' with approving or disapproving adjectives; in the latter case, they're often disqualifyingly negative, which in turn paints a picture of a 'true scientist' as some kind of cloistered ascetic, likely possessing no political beliefs beyond those required to facilitate open enquiry and the exchange of ideas, certainly not giving public voice to their personal views regularly. ...
Given what I've expressed above, I'd say such fringe thinkers / researchers are attributed the "fringe" attribution on the basis of the external / third-party basis I mentioned above as much as by any snooty condescension from the academics' club(s). I'd also point out that some such "fringe" researchers would still qualify as "scientists" if the label were based on academic credentials alone - further demonstrating the futility in linking the label to academic background or affiliation.Similarly, we have all seen a number of 'fringe scientists' in the field of Forteana who clearly pursue some form of scientific method, but who lack the requisite qualifications (academic, professional and social) to be granted the title 'scientist'. ...
And pointing out that it must be a suitable subject for discussion based on what the statistics for the thread show.Nope. I am not going to be drawn into a political discussion. I do believe, however, that Peterson is not a suitable subject matter for this forum, simply because of his political beliefs. We should not be pandering to this sort of demagogue on here.
I repeatAnd pointing out that it must be a suitable subject for discussion based on what the statistics for the thread show.
Clearly there was enough interest to keep it going
Which pleases me.
if post statistics or degree of database burden were a valid indicator of suitability the...
And pointing out that it must be a suitable subject for discussion based on what the statistics for the thread show.
On the priority list of suitability / acceptability criteria interest absent relevance ranks somewhere down in the 3-digit range.Clearly there was enough interest to keep it going
That would be somewhere deep in the 4-digit range.Which pleases me.