It's no coincidence that Aristotle provided one of the most important worksin historyon what the happiest human life consists of, and that he worked on mathematics and logic. I think there are a number of STEM minded persons out there who would take a giant chit on a lot of modern philosophy (including moral) for not 'being done right', because it represents intellectual masturbation far more than what it once was. Though this applies to quite a bit of modern academia.

Have you considered that some things are outside of the scope of the scientific method and logic?



I take you agree with Sam Harris about developing a science of morality?

Regarding economics...

I really don't value that science that much, I'll tell you why.

In 07/08, there was a global economic meltdown. As you know, it almost brought a number of countries to it's knees, some countries are still suffering financially.

Out of the thousands of people with economics degrees, studying economics, or the hundreds of economics professors around the world...

(I checked) there approximately a dozen on public record predicting the meltdown before it happened.

The interesting thing... They were from conflicting schools of thought. Literally directly contradictory in some areas.

(I'll just present 3 that I'm most familiar with, as examples...)

Steve Keen - Monetary Circuit Theory/Hymen Minsky.

Nouriel Roubini - Neo Keynesian/Minsky.

Peter Schiff - Austrian Economics.

3 very different models of economics, and 3 economists who would strongly disagree with one another, all predicting the same thing accurately.

1) If economics was as solid as other fields of science, I would think that hundreds of Economists would be on record predicting the meltdown.

2) Contradictory models, were predictive.

3) Despite hundreds of economists, in each respective school of ecomomics (eg. Austrian economics, Closed circuit theory, etc) only 1, 2 or 3 people of the entire phuckin adherents of the school predicted it.

That is phuckin dismal IMO. And it's a reason why honestly, I don't take think that economists are the experts that they are presented to the public as.

The intellectual babble has been there since philosophy's beginnings. Take Aristotle, who managed to "reason" that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, without actually going out there and dropping the objects. We finally see with the rise of modern science, especially with Galileo and his probable use of inclined planes, that Aristotle was wrong on this. As a side note, in terms of mathematics, Aristotle did little to advance the subject outside general ideas of deductive logic....you just wont find much real math in what he wrote. Euclid or Archimedes are better examples of actual mathematics. Anyways, in general, wherever there is lots of philosophy and musings about metaphysics....the ancient Greek philosophers being no exception.....there is likely to be a bunch of babble as well. The two seem to be directly correlated.

Careful brah. The philosophers will sit there and insist that the truth value depends on your choice of axioms (they are right technically), and that ultimately nobody has any idea what they are talking about (and that's where they become trolls.).

Careful brah. The philosophers will sit there and insist that the truth value depends on your choice of axioms (they are right technically), and that ultimately nobody has any idea what they are talking about (and that's where they become trolls.).

I have no idea because I don't spend much time in this...field(?). I just watched jordan peterson because initially he had some interesting ideas but after watching 20ish hours of his content, I started disagreeing with a lot of what he says.


I'd say a challenging debater just needs to fit the following criteria:
- doesn't fixate on peterson's statements regarding the canadian bill and try to cherrypick to make it look like he's saying something he wasn't. half of his interviews are asking if he hates transgender people.
- have actual arguments of their own and not just click-bait counters to peterson's popular points that try to paint him as a bigot/racist/sexist.
- address peterson's point without the use of fallacies.


I'm sure there's at least one person on the left that is capable of this but i have yet to see it. to me, it's far more likely that he cherry picks who he argues against rather than good debaters, well versed in psychology, don't exist on the left. I get it though. going against news anchors who typically have a meh journalism background and not decades of psych experience allow him to paint himself as god-tier knowledge holder with no holes in his arguments as well as give him more exposure through cable tv than a youtube debate video

Oh for sure. And this is why truth value, as mentioned above, was meant strictly in a non-technical, informal fashion. Eventually you are always going to get into a meaningless discussion of what truth is, that really won't go anywhere.

As a side note, I was recently listening to a discussion between Sam Harris and Peterson on this very issue....and the entire debate was almost laughable...essentially an argument over a definition (of truth), and the strange notion of darwinian truth.

In order to circumvent the entire truth thing, I'll just say I dont find statements like

"God is the mode of being you value the most as demonstrated or manifested in your presumption, perception and action."

particularlyinteresting, being more or less mere definitions.

I find a statement like

"There do not exist positive integers x,y,z such that x^n+y^n=z^n, where n is an integer >2"

to be more interesting, for various reasons.