Peterson's a psychologist, an important field that many evolutionary biologists and HNers sadly don't quite understand, though they do very good work otherwise.
> You seem to be a person of faith, there's no arguing with people of faith.
Can you describe the methodology you used to determine that this is necessarily true, with zero exceptions?
> I just understand the limits of what we can actually know...
Ah, a perfectly rational human....this is like the 50th or so I've encountered this week!
Careful...faith is fundamental to human consciousness, and cultures, it comes in a wide variety of forms, and those who suffer from it typically are rendered unable to self-diagnose.
my apologies, you came in late, i'm on the other side (your side) of this debate, I was debating a rationalist, using the subterfuge of pointing out the religion that is materialism. some material that was getting downvoted was removed
> Just for the record since people can't see it, I had tons of upvotes before I added the part about Peterson. All the "logicians" here suddenly were not able to like (an emotion) the part of my comment that they had previously liked :)
Please don't turn an unrelated topic into a flamewar about Jorpson
Can you describe the methodology you used to determine that this is necessarily true, with zero exceptions?
> I just understand the limits of what we can actually know...
Ah, a perfectly rational human....this is like the 50th or so I've encountered this week!
Careful...faith is fundamental to human consciousness, and cultures, it comes in a wide variety of forms, and those who suffer from it typically are rendered unable to self-diagnose.