Some people have generously explained what he was probably trying to say:
...but as the Tweet says it's a line of attack which displays both ignorance and arrogance.
And these tweets following sum up the impression both Rogan and Peterson (but more especially Rogan) give me, on any topic:
4 comments:
Peterson has it right. Computer models do not constitute empirical evidence in any part of the scientific method. So he has it right you have it wrong.
The reality is that the oligarchy can pay for any lies they want to get from the science workers and the science workers happily oblige. So the oligarchy wants a non-existent virus or a non-existent heating problems thats what they are going to get.
Quite apart from that, were it a problem it would be an easy problem to solve. As one long term twitter participant has stated:
"We can never get enough cross-laminated timber buildings in the 3-8 storey range. When we hydrate the continent and practice cell-grazing the carbon will follow the water into the ground. Tell your global warming friends to put away their hanky, the problem has been solved."
Peterson is trying to be a Renaissance Man and in these days that is not possible. Various vlogs of his appear on my youtube feed and I remain surprised at how many opinions he has because someone with so many opinions on so many subjects is typically playing the clickbait game. I have little time for Peterson, he should go back to academia where he did good work because now is just another pathetic influencer in a world with too many voices and not enough rigour.
I like Rogan though but I am long past watching two people suck up to each other. It's ridiculous and typically only reinforces existing viewpoints of the audience. You want to learn something? Get off the effing internet, read and keep reading, then write up your ideas in a formal way so you can learn from your own mistakes. There are exceptions though, The Cat can generate some interesting discussions but it lacks the rigour of the old usenet forums and specialist forums that still exist today.
Social media as exists today has become ridiculous. The usenet was so much better because you could test your ideas against the leaders in the field. I was active on circa a dozen forums and learnt a lot there. The big difference though was that there were standards of evidence, you couldn't just make stuff up, and people forced you to substantiate your arguments by reference to the standards of evidence.
"Peterson is trying to be a Renaissance Man and in these days that is not possible."
Why not? The bullshit is always the same. And there is always dissidents available who have done the hard yards to tell you how things really work. These dissidents are almost always being blocked by the same kinds of troglodytes.
So you can come into a subject very quickly and sort out what is what. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit around. Like I spent three years on global warming. But that kind of dedication is not necessary any more because the lies are the same in every area.
Like I spent three years on global warming. But that kind of dedication is not necessary any more because the lies are the same in every area.
Explain why the models can't predict extreme local weather events.
Post a Comment