What's the most common way you see quacks dodging criticism? Have you ever caught someone doing any of this in an argument?

@Aki-to

5 жыл бұрын

All the time with people who don't value science much.

@maki3898

5 жыл бұрын

Painting others as the liars. Throwing the "oh they dont understand this topic so their criticism isnt valid" kind of argument. Etc "God is spiritual so science cant measure it" is one such example of dodging criticism.

@ethancampbell2422

5 жыл бұрын

1) No, no, it's because you don't understand what I'm really saying. 2) You seem to understand, but you're unwilling to accept it, the Truth scares you, you're dishonest with yourself.

@diobrando6716

5 жыл бұрын

Genetically Modified Skeptic my favorite one is when they ignore every point you say and bring up Hitler, Stalin, Mao.

@turtlelovingfilms

5 жыл бұрын

“You just don’t have the right perspective” as if to understand the validity of their argument I need to internally change a fundamental truth. It’s the final form to the open mindedness argument.

"i took physics, chemistry, biology" so did literally every publicly educated teenager lmao

@ChrisMaxfieldActs

5 жыл бұрын

Not in the United States. Those courses are offered at high schools here, but they are not requirements, and many students do not take those courses.

@SmallAngryNerd

5 жыл бұрын

they were required in my school in ohio, but it was a really well funded and privileged district, so we may have had different requirements than other districts

@sirsardine1

5 жыл бұрын

Deeprock: "I took biology, chemistry, physics, physical science, earth science, life science..."

@titanicww2345

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah at least here in the US you are required to take Biology and University Physics for any Scientific type degree.

@Fylasfrommabi

5 жыл бұрын

"which automatically qualifies me to talk about theoretical quantum physics!!!!"... oh wait it doesn't even though it was implied :P also! commenting to help out with the algorythm praise be unto adam ~ (yes I know I spelled it wrong, I'm avoiding filtering flags for people who mention the thingy, shhh!!)

Just finished a video about how quacks evade criticism: KZread: It seems you are interested in energy healing

@infinitedragonbellyx.x

4 жыл бұрын

Considering a lot of GMS content is related to spiritual healings and "essential oils curealls) it makes sense

@Aanthanur

4 жыл бұрын

@@infinitedragonbellyx.x the algorythm failes to distinguishe between pro and con videos. i watch alot of science videos about cliamte change, YT keeps recomending AGW denialist propaganda videos.

@infinitedragonbellyx.x

4 жыл бұрын

@@Aanthanur might be advertising algorithms too? Idk. Whenever I watch liberal or atheistic content. I get tons of ads by The Daily Wire or Trump asking for support or any super conservative talk show host. Its frustrating, they are usually condicendings jackoffs

@Aanthanur

4 жыл бұрын

@@infinitedragonbellyx.x oh never had a trump add. would propably just delete my account, i feel ther eis far to much adds lately anyway.

@ashleyhaumschild2655

4 жыл бұрын

Ha ha ha

“Your science is really frozen in the dungeons of conservatism” That’s literally the opposite of how science works

@FruityHachi

3 жыл бұрын

could he mean conservative methods being used? eg. using the same methodology and expecting a different result or scientific papers paid by interest groups, eg. monsanto funding papers to prove that gmo isn't harmful

@turkeeg7644

3 жыл бұрын

Accusing the other person of exactly what they are.... just like on the playground.

@EvolvedAtheist

3 жыл бұрын

I enjoy the fact that religionists use "conservatism" as an insult. Even more amusing, they often accuse opponents of worshipping "scientism" as a "religion".

@inoshikachokonoyarobakayar2493

3 жыл бұрын

Talk about projection

@crimfan

3 жыл бұрын

Max Planck: "Science progresses one funeral at a time." I'm all for science, but there's plenty of times when different areas of science has been "really frozen in the dungeons of conservatism." There's all sorts of empire building and appeals to authority that goes on in actual scientific practice, just as in any other human endeavor. Read some "reviewer #2" comments some time to see what I mean. Science is still the best we've got but let's not kid ourselves.

*Horny snakes getting busy* Peterson: " _Is this an ancient knowledge the double helix that transcendend time_ "

@marshallwayne9270

4 жыл бұрын

Peterson does good in psychology, but psychology is at the end of the day a soft science it's not literal and it's main purpose is to deal with human emotions, people shouldn't use psychology as hard facts or try and apply it to the more concrete science

@imheretochewbubblegum

4 жыл бұрын

DMT and LSD is NOT good for the brain. Peterson should stop taking it.

@VarjoFilosofi

4 жыл бұрын

​@@marshallwayne9270 Yeah agreed. The thing about psychology is that it should somewhat be connected to "spirituality". Without that psychology is kinda empty and lack meaningfulness, which is essential for being successful psychologist or psychotherapist. But that doesn't mean that psychology wouldn't have also pretty strong connections on hard sciences like biology. They need to know how brains and mind work. Practically great psychologist need to be doctor and "shaman" at the same time.

@rodschmidt8952

4 жыл бұрын

@Mr. 8-Bit Doggo I think the point is that from time to time he uses methods that fraudsters use.

@rodschmidt8952

4 жыл бұрын

"especially around healing" -- Ironically the double-serpent symbol is an American invention! The ancient healer symbol is a SINGLE snake wrapped around a tree or staff. Also, when was any snake used as a symbol for cellular division?

3:08 Another lie. David Berlinski is not "one of the world's leading physicists". He is not even a physicists. He's a philosopher by education, specializing in philosophy of mathematics (and not being very good at it, judging by his peer review record). Professionally, he's an employee of the Discovery Institute, a private think tank focusing on denying the theory of evolution.

@Ugly_German_Truths

5 жыл бұрын

oh yay he's at the Discotute? Must mean if he leads anything it's the world record in fertilizer farming as he mainly would produce bullshit apologetics.

@blazmaverick

5 жыл бұрын

David Berlinski is trash. He wrote a book about calculus that I really liked and then he broke my heart by becoming a miserable Discovery Institute shill.

@BigHeretic

5 жыл бұрын

*berlineczka* Thanks for verifying that, I waited for the onscreen message from Drew and was surprised by its absence. I didn't know but I suspected as much.

@LarsPallesen

5 жыл бұрын

What's really thought provoking is that religious charlatans can go around for years saying stuff like "David Berlinski, one of the world's leading physicists" without anybody in their core audience so much as batting an eye lid. Because they have absolutely no clue who the leading scientists in any scientific field are. You could literally make up the name of an imaginary "world leading scientist" on the fly and they would be none the wiser. It's a bit scary, actually.

@carlosmatos9848

5 жыл бұрын

I thought it was hilarious that his argument was based on name dropping some random dudes, "Have you ever heard of him???? No, didn't think so!"

"What these scientists say CAN'T be wrong" No no no! I trust that what these scientists say ISN'T wrong. It still CAN be wrong!

@abrannan

4 жыл бұрын

I trust that they can provide the methods and data obtained that supports what they say.

@ericmuschlitz7619

3 жыл бұрын

Religion can only exist because it refuses to allow for challenge, or else it diminishes. Science can only exists because it invites challenge, and so it grows.

@ethanowens473

3 жыл бұрын

The thing with scientists is they will admit when proven wrong and will adjust their conclusions based on new exidence.

@German_cookies

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethanowens473 ask Albert Einstein about quantum mechanics lol

@alexanderofrhodes9622

3 жыл бұрын

A scientist never trusts conclusions. Conclusions are the appetizer that makes me want to dig into your methods and equipment. They don't contribute anything on their own, they are a summary of a process that has been performed and needs to be criticized before being accepted as a valid means of gaining truth

This is absolutely brilliant. I'm quite embarrassed about how many times I've been duped by these tactics myself.

@uniqueusername_

4 жыл бұрын

Don’t be embarrassed-embarrassment leads to hiding it. Realize that you’ve grown and become a better person, and own that growth. It’s a virtue.

@bakarenibsheut12

4 жыл бұрын

@@uniqueusername_ Thanks, man, I appreciate the kind words :)

@Bken96

Жыл бұрын

@@uniqueusername_ the most wholesome youtube comment in the history of the planet.

As a disabled person on a fixed income, I can't tell you how much I appreciated your explicitly telling those of us who are financially limited to keep our money. I often feel guilty for not being able to support my favorite creators beyond my KZread Premium subscription, and that comment made me feel a lot better about not being able to support you and other creators on Patreon.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

Flag people who are harmful on youtube; why else is the flag-option programmed in otherwise?!

@doppelgangerfa2920

Жыл бұрын

There are more important things to feel bad about lol

@Mcfreddo

Жыл бұрын

If you like and subscribe, KZread pays the channel. Pays him as long as he gets adverts showing, but that is in KZread's hands. No need for you to feel bad. Those that can will. It's all good.

@creatrixZBD

Жыл бұрын

Its horrible how the audience can feel guilty for not giving financially. I too appreciated the message at the end. Just watching, liking, commenting etc is PLENTY of support, and has already generated income for the channel. The way some creators approach this subject with their viewers can be very emotionally manipulative and entitled. It should never be the norm that you feel obliged or guilted to tip a free channel.

@HakuYuki001

Жыл бұрын

Did you really need to be told that.

On behalf of India, I apologise for Deepak Chopra. If any country wants to take him, we don't mind.

@hhiippiittyy

5 жыл бұрын

On behalf of Canada, I apologize for Jordan Peterson.

@ratamacue0320

5 жыл бұрын

Don't apologize "on behalf of" other people. They're not sorry, and so shouldn't be forgiven for whatever wrongs they don't apologize for themselves. It makes no sense, except maybe if the apologizer holds some authority over the perpetrator, e.g. a parent apologizing on behalf of their children.

@Ryfinius

5 жыл бұрын

Now apologize for tech support and scammers.

@nandans2506

5 жыл бұрын

@@Ryfinius lol ... But we are being scammed here in India by Nigerians... Karma

@Longtack55

4 жыл бұрын

The USA is the refuge for shysters.

I love the dishonest way Hovind suggests that his opponent believes in "dirt", given the fact that the biblical myths have Adam being created from dirt.

@ertanfahrenheit4359

3 жыл бұрын

Because they are whores for sale.

@lostangelus1

3 жыл бұрын

@@ertanfahrenheit4359 what???

@LittleMongoosie

3 жыл бұрын

My folks used to put vhs's of his lectures on all the time when I was a kid. Don't miss those days.

@roadrunner9622

2 жыл бұрын

I don't agree with Kent Hovind, but his statement is actually a good point. And you did exactly what this video is talking about: Instead of answering Hovind's good point, you sidestepped it with accusations about his supposed hypocrisy.

@Fierfek1972

2 жыл бұрын

@@roadrunner9622 No, I pointed out that apologetics arguments are usually their own refutations.

I watched Ravi Zacharias get schooled by a bystander after an event and it was hilarious because instead of presenting the argument he just said "There is a reason I was invited to speak and not yourself" XD

@michaelweigand8643

3 жыл бұрын

He was correct. He's a well known BS artist, and he's very good at spreading his BS.

@anope9053

2 жыл бұрын

link?

Transitioning from old low res footage to your crisp face was sooo satisfying.

@KHJohan

3 жыл бұрын

Crisp and full of flavour

@ej.crusing6130

3 жыл бұрын

OMG it so is

@hiddenwoodsben

3 жыл бұрын

oooohlala, so crisp ....

@StarryxNight5

3 жыл бұрын

So crispy and colorful.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

BE the opposite of cancel-culture then! Report/Flag Chopra! Or is our disagreement with him just 'taste' and 'opinion'? Cause that question makes all the difference in the world... Cancel-Culture or it's opposite, what's it gonna be?

Kent: I believe god, you believe dirt. Both our positions are religious. Me: Dirt exists.

@neggit2063

5 жыл бұрын

I guess governments and countries don't exist then.

@neggit2063

5 жыл бұрын

@@Anglomachian to keep it short:much like God, a government, a nation and Law are ideas/ideals.We have to believe them in order for them to exist.

@Anglomachian

5 жыл бұрын

@@neggit2063 Well, congrats on having definition of god #7,665,342,322,121, but if god only exists because a bunch of humans came together and decided it was so, then yeah, you're right, he doesn't exist. Most people who believe in him consider god to be an extant being whose existence is not contingent on whether or not someone believes it exists, not some conceptual social contract binding people to common cause through mutual agreement and the threat of arms.

@sandoholtz1504

4 жыл бұрын

So does God

@generalgrievous2202

4 жыл бұрын

@@sandoholtz1504 congrats you have an opinion!

Peterson: "I'm operating on the edge of my understanding". Translation: "I'm talking out of my ass".

@joshmarden9933

4 жыл бұрын

Edge of understanding = little knowledge on the subject Ass of understanding = zero knowledge on the subject

@biblebot3947

3 жыл бұрын

Joshua Wilks the point is that there’s a very fine line between the two and JP often oversteps

@eamontdmas

3 жыл бұрын

@@joshmarden9933 You are better off with zero understanding. It's when you have little evidence that you tend to overreach

@cookiecutter6735

3 жыл бұрын

I cringed there because it looked to me like an admission that, _this is his best_ 😐

@mathewhutchins2539

3 жыл бұрын

He's the king of using big words and long sentences to sound smarter. In his conversation with Matt Dillahunty, he completely floundered. Jordan gave long winded answers with huge words and little substance. Matt used plain language (with the exception of logic jargon) and gave highly substantive answers.

As someone thats only recently invested interest in Peterson, Hitchens, Harris, Shapiro (to a lesser extent) et al, your videos are really appreciated. When watch too much Peterson, you get lost in KZread's algorithm of suggested videos leading you down a path of blind acceptance. Same with the others I've mentioned. Criticality is essential, and thank you for reiterating this.

Because science doesn’t buy Chopra’s unsupported woo-woo word salad, he lambastes it as “orthodoxy”.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

Quacks? Whats that?

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

@The King of Nature BE the opposite of cancel-culture then! Report/Flag Chopra! Or is our disagreement with him just 'taste' and 'opinion'? Cause that question makes all the difference in the world. Cancel-Culture or it's opposite, what's it gonna be?

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

@The King of Nature I know what you mean, but what i ask of you is not to be Cancel-Culture. I literally ask you to be the 180 Degree Opposite of Cancel-Culture. I know what you mean, with 'Let the morons expose themselves', but i'm sorry to break it to you: Thats a too simple view on the matter. Its too simple, so much even it becomes, unfortunately, outright wrong. For example: Think about why we have, if offline, the Police Phonenumber... Think about it. Using the Report-Option if you're online is not negative; its the opposite. IF done right.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

@The King of Nature Its good you will never do Cancel-Culture; but if you are under the wrong impression that its Opposite does not exist and you can only 'Do Nothing' or 'Be Cancel-Culture' (which is objectively wrong, cause theres way more options than just these 2), then you may want to overthink youre rather simple view on the matter. A starting point for realizing that may to think about why theres a Police Phonenumber and a Report-Option on Social Media in the first place... Hope you notice.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

@The King of Nature Well, depends on the target: If he has a KZread-Channel, you can use the Report-Option to ask for Age-Restriction and/or Removal (i normally ask for Removal, because i target the big fishes anyway) - and then you wait. If it didnt worked, if its still up and not removed, then you can just report again. Sorry if this explanation is a little clunky - you just need to experiment around a bit, then you get used to the System.

David Berlinski a leading physicist? Last I knew he has a PhD in Philosophy and has not published anything in physics.

@gurikasemit

5 жыл бұрын

Mr. Muller, that was a GOOD laugh. Thanks!

@joelvonthrum8658

5 жыл бұрын

www.davidberlinski.org/biography.php. Before commenting, at least check his bio.

@RobertWGreaves

5 жыл бұрын

Sad to say, too many Christian apologists have fake credentials and cannot keep straight who has what legitimate credential.

@justintempus7406

5 жыл бұрын

joel von Thrum. If you read your own link, he claims precisely 0 physics background.

@aquidillion

5 жыл бұрын

joel von Thrum So a mathematician and a philosopher, instead of just a philosopher.

That “we’re both religious” guy bugged me so much. What a ridiculous straw man. “You think dirt.” No one ever said in the beginning there was dirt. Ahhh it’s like nails on a chalkboard listening to that

@kathryngeeslin9509

5 жыл бұрын

But some do say "dust", that we were created from dust (not dirt), it just isn't us. He often seems confused like this, but knows just what he's doing.

@meller7303

5 жыл бұрын

Kathryn Geeslin stardust maybe ? Still a super lazy and misleading thing to say

@Ugly_German_Truths

5 жыл бұрын

Kent Hovind aka "Doctor Dino" has turned dishonesty into an art form. While avoiding the ugly truth that the bible claims god made adam from DIRT. while the creation story does not even claim a creatio ex nihilo (the water is unexplainedly there bfore god starts "creating", maybe before god was there to float over it! And whatever god does, it comes from that water and what he makes appear out of it... So... Kent does not even have a fully comprehensive model of where the universe and everything inside it comes from, but he claims he does... while at the same time conflating everything science has found out in four hundreds years of rigid research and strenuous fight for more precision, accuracy and correctness into a factually wrong statement to flippantly dismiss it and the body of evidence behind it... What a hypocrite!)

@kathryngeeslin9509

5 жыл бұрын

@@Ugly_German_Truths Of course! His God made Adam from the dust or red clay of the garden, so he says we claim we're from dirt. His God "poofs" all into existence with magical incantations, so he says we claim everything came from nothing. And science is religion and takes more faith to be atheist etc etc etc. He flips everything, a choreographed song and dance, and the absurdity is completely missed by his audiences. I vastly prefer Sagan's stardust, that stars died for us to become.

@alveolate

5 жыл бұрын

to be fair, and to steelman the argument, scientists can sometimes be dogmatic as well, finding themselves unwilling to challenge the orthodoxy of certain well-known ideas or other respected scientists. in that sense, there is potentially some _personal_ level of stubbornness - but that's expected from any large group of humans. the worse effect of "religiosity" stemming from "science" is when bad science takes root and the misinformed spread it as truth. it can be as benign as old wives' tales leading to most of us believing that we can't swim after lunch... to something cancerous and harmful like the anti-vaxxers. to clarify, neither of these steelmen actually critique _science_ itself; rather, they only matter because people are stubborn and/or misinformed. in fact, if people were truly scientifically literate, they can be convinced to acknowledge their mistakes just by educating them. to further the steelman, religious people don't actually _have_ to be dogmatic or misinformed. the pope is PhD holder for chemistry - he's not going to question the scientific method. the fact that he's been far more willing than his predecessors to be introspective and criticise his church for its failings also shows that it's a character thing. that said, i am fully aware of how the catholic church is still full of bad faith misuse of science and pope francis is just the best religious example i can think of off the top of my head :)

Or: "I'm not questioning your scientific credentials, you are a neuro-endocrinologist. BUT NEURO-ENDOCRINOLOGY IS NOT QUANTUM MECHANICS"

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

Quacks? Whats that?

Dude, Im a Christian, but you, together with Knowing Better are some of the most truthful and straightforward channels I've seen on KZread.

@kyle857

4 жыл бұрын

Just be careful with knowing better. Sometime he talks out of his add. Like his 4K episode.

@mrinternetguy3625

4 жыл бұрын

Knowing Better is a good channel. You have good taste.

@ohno5559

3 жыл бұрын

KB really shat the bed with his Columbus video

@shodan658

3 жыл бұрын

I am a Christian as well, and I love this channel. I don't know who Knowing Better is, though.

@michaudt1

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with Kyle... Knowing Better is not honest. I've seen him use the tactic of showing a video clip of someone he is arguing against but cutting it off so the person's word are taken out of context.

3:10 "has anyone ever provided proof of god's inexistence?" 1) the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. It is the job of those claiming a god exists to prove a god exists. 2) has anyone ever provided a clear meaningful definition for the god they claim exists? Until they define their god clearly, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of the god.

@rexnemovi6061

3 жыл бұрын

C Nault When it comes to seeking the truth (as opposed to appearing to have won a discussion), there is no such thing as the burden of proof. There are only facts and willingness to process the info. Other than that, you're correctly stating that unless we have a clear definition, the existence of God is unprovable and irrefutable

@cnault3244

3 жыл бұрын

@@rexnemovi6061 "When it comes to seeking the truth (as opposed to appearing to have won a discussion), there is no such thing as the burden of proof." That's very vague...can you define what you mean by "seeking the truth"? The fact remain: when someone has made a claim, they have the burden of proof and must prove the claim IF they expect others to accept the claim as valid. "There are only facts and willingness to process the info. And what are the facts that support the claim that a god exists? "Other than that, you're correctly stating that unless we have a clear definition, the existence of God is unprovable and irrefutable" Which means that if someone is unable to define god clearly, when they say they believe god exists they are saying "I believe god exists but I don't know what it is"

@rexnemovi6061

3 жыл бұрын

​@@cnault3244 Not sure what is so vague about seeking the truth. It's trying to learn and find out in order to know. Two times two is four, machines heavier than air can fly, electricity exists. That's the truth, regardless of whether whoever does or doesn't accepts those claims as valid. And electricity or electromagnetic waves existed regardless of whether anybody could or couldn't at a given point in history provide any facts proving their existence. Finally, your final sentence is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with anything. The truth is that whatever the definition of god may be, he/she/it either does exist, or does not. Seeking the truth is trying to find out.

@cnault3244

3 жыл бұрын

@@rexnemovi6061 "Not sure what is so vague about seeking the truth. It's trying to learn and find out in order to know. " Calling what you seek "the truth" adds some unnecessary baggage, usually in the arena of god/religion. Much simpler to say seeking knowledge. "The truth is that whatever the definition of god may be, he/she/it either does exist, or does not. " Or they. And the fact is the time to believe god exists is when you have evidence for the existence of god. And unless you have clearly defined what you mean by the word god, you will never have evidence for the existence of whatever you mean by god.

@TheEternalOuroboros

3 жыл бұрын

It is a claim in itself to say God does NOT exist though.

"If someone says I'm offended, my response is, well I'm still waiting to hear your point!" - paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens.

@bobmiller3627

5 жыл бұрын

Christopher Hitchens was kind of a bigoted asshole. He on multiple occasions defended the freedom of speech of Holocaust deniers, while saying on other occasions that people from minority groups should be told to shut-up when they have something to say. I still like Hitch, and I wish he was still around, but he was undoubtedly a bigoted asshole, and a bit of a right-winger to boot. Sam Harris turned out to be a total quack, a dipshit right-winger, and claims to be a Humanist while advocating for open warfare against Muslims. Dawkins is kind of a dick-headed old man when it comes to statements about sexual assault and rape, although at least he's willing to learn from his mistakes when presented with new information. Daniel Dennett is still bearded, and I don't like beards :(

@fergusdenoon1255

5 жыл бұрын

Harris advocates open warfare against muslims ... wowsers, I think you'll need to present evidence of that ... it maybe just your lack of understanding that has lead you to believe that, or my lack of understanding that makes me believe he'd never say that ... proof please.

@xxMrBaldyxx

5 жыл бұрын

I think Bob Miller is just annoyed that Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris made fun of his imaginary friend.

@FormerPessitheRobberfan

5 жыл бұрын

@@xxMrBaldyxx Bob Miller also says "he is also a bit of a right winger" as if that in anyway makes his points any less valid or that being right wing automatically has a negative connotation. Bob is most likely a partisan hack.

@Ryfinius

5 жыл бұрын

My dad would say "hi offended. I'm don."

Berlinski, one the worlds LEADING PHYSICISTS? Berlinski doesn't know jack about physics. His PhD is in PHILOSOPHY and he isn't very good at that either.

@itzakhywell7668

3 жыл бұрын

Rather like Sam Harris... 😂

@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv

3 жыл бұрын

@@itzakhywell7668 Only Sam is not willfully lying, as Berlinski does for pay. Ethelred Hardredre

@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv

3 жыл бұрын

@MrZapparin "There’s a difference between Harris possibly being dumb, or lacking in intellectual development," Not being a fan and knowing that he played into in William Lane Craig's hands, I still don't see him as dumb, just not experienced in dealing with BS artists like WLC. His silly mistake with WLC was his inept decision to pretend that morals have an objective standard. WLC has NEVER produced such a standard. He just CLAIMS that it exists. I think he knows that the Bible fully supports slavery and genocide. That could be why he never uses the Bible in his load of BS. "f he would be ignorant, gas-lighter, sophist, liar, scammer, cheater ' Then he would be much like Berlinski. Though I am pretty sure that Berlinski is NOT all that ignorant. He uses Creationist arguments tarted up in philosophical rhetoric. He is LAZY. To lazy to be bothered to come with arguments that might not be so obviously false to the competent. Ethelred Hardrede

@johndelong5574

3 жыл бұрын

Mines bigger!

When you made your second point I literally screamed "Jordan Peterson! That's him in a nutshell!" I guess it says a lot about his tactics when I could tell from your description alone. Admittedly I saw him in the thumbnail, but there were still two unknown tactics left at this point.

@pjaworek6793

Жыл бұрын

Spoiler! I wanted to guess which one it was. Edit the last line.

I appreciate when any of these people (such as Peterson) states that “we’re operating at the edge of my understanding” because he’s being upfront with his lack of knowledge. It’s hid followers that argue his points as if they’re immutable facts. That being said, I’m equally glad to see when someone doesn’t let him get away with that as the response, because saying simply “I don’t know and you don’t either” doesn’t work when you’re making a positive assertion and demanding that someone else prove your point for you.

@rexnemovi6061

4 жыл бұрын

Lucy Dyamond The little issue you may be missing is that one doesn't necessarily need to know the correct answer to a question to be able to correctly eliminate most, possibly even all, of the incorrect ones. Admission of lack of knowledge in a specific area is a fairly reliable proof of both wisdom, and honesty.

@EdwardHowton

3 жыл бұрын

Just because Peterson admits he's talking out of his ass doesn't mean he isn't asserting that the shit he's pulled out of there is absolutely 100% true and you should organize around it. Imagine a con man telling you "Look, I can't guarantee 100% that you're going to get 1200% returns on this investment, you never how the market is going to behave. I guess I'll just go back to my hundreds of millionaire friends that I helped make those millions and tell them you didn't want to join the club. No harm no fowl, man. It's your decision." That's Peterson. That's how people con idiots. It's literally "Just Asking Questions" as mentioned in this video, what I call "JAQing off". Watch Martimer81's series _Why Do People Laugh At Spirit Science_ and you'll see it over and over. "I'm not SAYING all of observable science is wrong" followed by HOURS of videos saying "Everything I say is absolutely true and science is wrong completely wrong not just wrong but evil don't trust science only trust me I know all I am the ultimate truth of reality give me money". Watch his other series, _The Woo of Wu_ where I explain this very same JAQing off concept there, I think in the final video. Watch Glenn Beck who made a CAREER out of "just asking questions" about whether or not certain non-republicans were secret nazis or trying to murder everybody in their sleep _but he's not SAYING they are he's just ASKING _*_IF_*_ they are! and also you should buy a gun and be ready to shoot them when they invade your home to murder you which they will totally do._ Look at any pyramid scheme like Young Living or Amway and you'll see the exact same thing. _We're not SAYING our product cures cancer! Now listen to these hundreds of people we paid off telling you how they used the product and their cancer was cured!_ Pretending to be fallible to reassure people and then doubling down is con artist tactic #1. There's not a single scam, charlatan, con artist, fraud, hoaxer, or cult that DOESN'T do this to some extent or another. _You've got doubts. I understand. It sounds too good to be true. BUT DA GOVMINT BANS ME FROM SAYING IT WORKZ DER4 YOU KNOW IT SUPER WORKZ FO REELZ!@#!@#!@#!@_ This shouldn't make you appreciate people who do it. It should be a giant red flag for _sleaze._

@Dejawolfs

3 жыл бұрын

@@EdwardHowton except he doesn't. you've created a strawman. JP knows full-well himself that his religious ideas are about as tight as a sieve. he's got his grounding in psychology, and then he's got his ideas that he likes to play with. he usually warns beforehand that these ideas are not grounded properly, he merely points it out as "interesting coincidences". sometimes they are, other times it's just a mishmash of incoherent thoughts.

@shortsideburns8682

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dejawolfs Thank you for saying this, JP consistently admits his lack of knowledge in certain areas, although he takes his reasoning in those areas as far as he feels is somewhat supportable (although one can certainly show the holes in those cases as people regularly do). The mistake many JP supporters make is believing that everything that JP says is 100% airtight, without recognizing that, in many of his lectures online, JP is only laying out a rough framework of his ideas on a particular topic.

@hiddenwoodsben

3 жыл бұрын

i think i could be called a "follower of peterson" and hislectures have helped me greatly, but i still have my problems with many things he says. especially when he either simply doesn't understand how the evolution of a social species selects for altruistic behaviour instead of against it or when, like in this case, he tries to shift the burden of proof. i don't think he does it on purpose, though and he has apologized for similar goofs in the past.

Deepprick Chopra is a freaking joke.

@aprilk141

5 жыл бұрын

I agree but I think he would have the decency to spell your name correctly.

@visigrog

5 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, a joke that far too many simple minds take far too seriously. He's another product of Oprah's evil empire. Dr. Oz is almost as bad.

@bdf2718

5 жыл бұрын

Why pay all that money for Deepak Chopra? Go to Ikea and get a Flatpack Chopra. It has the same screws missing and is just as useless, but it costs less.

@visigrog

5 жыл бұрын

And actually might have some utility.

@Phreemunny

5 жыл бұрын

I like TMM’s nickname for him: Derpack

1:45 The error made was unnecessarily loading the question. He allowed too many points to address giving the speaker too many routes of escape. He should have been a bit more humble and asked the question clearly.

@JeffTheHokie

4 жыл бұрын

A classic example of a Gish-gallop. Only this time it was done by the atheist.

@cromwellfluffington1627

4 жыл бұрын

@@JeffTheHokie I think we've all been guilty of overloading questions.

@grantstratton4629

3 жыл бұрын

I always thought the answer to that question from Athiests is, "In order to get to your conclusion you have to assume that either A: Determinism is absolute, in which case, your argument applies equally to the government punishing criminals (i.e. you can't have both a moral framework and believe in hard determinisim); or B. God actively interferes in all human affairs and creates every outcome, for which I think you need some kind of proof / support."

"In the beginning, dirt" This is literally what Kent Hovind believes re: Adam

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

2:20: What a dumb question, tbh. I mean, i outsmart people all the damn time; literally - do they therefore not have Free Will? No, OF COURSE NOT. I always scuffed at that question. No, God being smart or all-knowing or both does obviously and most obviously not make Free Will a Lie, duh. ...On another note, adding to that: Arguably but probably, God was just called All-knowing by Humans who are so much inferior that, well... you get it, dont you?

@cccaaa702

3 жыл бұрын

@@slevinchannel7589 Uh, are you sure this reply is related to a random comment made a year ago?

I will utilize all 4 of these, thanks for helping us quacks out. keep asking questions

@LancesArmorStriking

5 жыл бұрын

lol, don't forget red herrings

@TheGuardDuck

4 жыл бұрын

Username checks out...

"We can see things sometimes that we can't really see"

@HappinessOrDeath

5 жыл бұрын

He is insufferable

Peterson can talk for an hour without saying anything

@InfiniteDeckhand

4 жыл бұрын

I often get the same feeling with Slavoj Zizek.

@rexnemovi6061

4 жыл бұрын

Oliver Dahl Or more precisely, Peterson can talk for an hour without you getting anything of what he said.

@derwolf9670

4 жыл бұрын

@@rexnemovi6061 Nah...that's not it. He just talks so much because he likes listening to himself

@rexnemovi6061

4 жыл бұрын

@@derwolf9670 I guess, what we have here is projection at work. But as different from your situation, and thus as hard for you to understand, it may be, there are people who speak a lot because they have a lot to say. And if they write a bestseller and are able to pack halls full of audiences, then it's a bit unpersuasive to argue that people are not interested to hear what they have to say.

@derwolf9670

4 жыл бұрын

@@rexnemovi6061 Are you still on that? Jeez... You think he has important things to say? Great...I think he sounds smart on the surface and insane below it. He's also too much of a narcissist and too much right-wing for my taste. I don't like him, I don't think he says smart things...you have to learn to live with it

I KNEW when he started on the Motte instance that he was going to use Jordan Peterson as the example. I laughed so hard. I had not heard of this Bailey and Motte criticism before, but immediately thought of Peterson as he described it.

@rocknroll909

3 жыл бұрын

Probably one of the most frequent fallacies of his

@catjuzu

3 жыл бұрын

Yep.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

2:20: What a dumb question, tbh. I mean, i outsmart people all the damn time; literally - do they therefore not have Free Will? No, OF COURSE NOT. I always scuffed at that question. No, God being smart or all-knowing or both does obviously and most obviously not make Free Will a Lie, duh.

@cccaaa702

3 жыл бұрын

@@slevinchannel7589 Again lol, nice answer but related?

@roadrunner9622

2 жыл бұрын

I wish I could have been there when you were laughing so hard. 😄

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” Mark Twain

@joelvonthrum8658

5 жыл бұрын

'Atheism was invented when the fool and the con man had a disabled love child that was cut out of the will and dumped at an orphanage'...(bloke I met at the shops who had read Mark Twain)

@RageTyrannosaurus

5 жыл бұрын

@@joelvonthrum8658 Then what preceded religion? Edit: I realized that reads like I'm taking it personally. I just want to know what that person thinks existed before religion seeing as they sound like they have a rather low opinion of atheism.

@joelvonthrum8658

5 жыл бұрын

Atheism is fine, but the arrogant certainty of some atheists and militancy of some is as annoying as that of any vegan or other gp. As for what existed prior, it's speculation only. The claim 'religion evolved because...(insert reason)' is not supported by any facts whatsoever - only an assumption that mankind evolved from lower order primates who didn't have the capacity to reason like we do. There is no evidence that 'Lucy', for example, was unable to reason spiritually or to the same extent that anyone can today. An absence of evidence for tools and housing is not evidence of absence either. As for what preceded 'Lucy', the evidence of a direct descension from an earlier mammal, let alone fowls or fish, is no more than another Genesis story - the evidence - such as it is - shows us that both were carbon based life forms, and some minor physical commonalities that can be readily explained in less fanciful ways. The only reason to believe that religion evolved is to assume a priori there was no other way for it to occur. That isn't science - it's a question of faith. If punctuated evolution of major physical changes is possible (and personally I think that is just a way of conceding that gradated evolution of major physical developments and differences that enables significant advantage is actually impossible, or at least so unlikely as to be all but impossible), then it can equally apply to the religious instinct, which is persistent, pervasive and fundamental to the human condition (even many atheists are religious in their own ways follow secular religions of humanism, materialism, or what have you - and are interested).

@RageTyrannosaurus

5 жыл бұрын

@@joelvonthrum8658 Do you think other species have religious beliefs? Do mice have gods, and do their gods resemble them? How does one reason "spiritually"? These questions may appear combative, but they are not meant to be taken so.

@CatholicismRules

5 жыл бұрын

RageTyrannosaurus, I've been very busy with school this year, so I probably can't have a discussion, but if you'd like a few of my thoughts on that, I think that's a very good and interesting question, although I think it can't get anywhere. First of all, it depends what you mean by "gods," as there have been many, many definitions. Second of all, we don't know our own thought processes, so we of course wouldn't be focused on those of mice to figure out what they think. Thirdly, the claim that they do (have gods) and the claim that they do not are both untenable and unfalsifiable. In other words: We _can't_ know. Fourthly, do mice even think? Given how humans have arbitrarily defined life, we could just as easily have said that mice are an exception to the rule of the characteristics of life, meaning mice are not alive. If they are alive, then like I said, we can't know (but furthermore, we can't even know *_if_* we can't know, that circle ad infinitum). Instead of presuming they aren't alive, I'll ask this: why would something even need to be alive for it to have a religious structure? From a naturalist standpoint, there's absolutely no reason to/not to adhere to solipsism nor is there reason to/not to ascribe to panpsychism. If mice have gods, why would/wouldn't they resemble them? The Egyptians had gods that both bore a resemblance to them and were entirely different. How do we reason spiritually? Why even add that descriptor? How do we reason? We just trust that we can and act on that faith. I personally think there's no reason to believe we can reason at all. I think we do, but it's just a guess (because what more *_could_* it be, in reality?). Here's how I look at it: 1. If you think you can reason spiritually, you go on with life teaching your kids how to be good, moral people, and you're confident in yourself. 2. If you think you cannot reason spiritually, you may as well die, because there's no reason to think you can reason at all. In fact, if you apply the same principle to every fundamental process as you do to spiritual reasoning, you may as well make the assumption that you just *can't,* and yes I leave out the verb on purpose. Life is _replete_ with axioms, and this is one of them. It's best to say, "I can" rather than, "I can't," or else you make yourself useless and life not worth living. I know I didn't answer your questions. I didn't intend to. My intention was to show you all the underlying questions which cannot be answered. Depending on your take on these, you may be able to answer the questions, yourself.

"So basically I believe in the beginning God and you believe in the beginning dirt" So you're saying I believe in something that actually exists? Sure, let's go with that.

@TheRachaelLefler

5 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of a pagan bumper sticker I saw once: I worship nature - don't laugh, I can prove it exists.

@ameteuraspirant

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheRachaelLefler but that did make me laugh

@TheAlmightyJello

5 жыл бұрын

@Ham Man Then are earthquakes just when god makes an "earth shattering" fart?

@SC-zq6cu

5 жыл бұрын

So what happens when God gets ass-cancer ?

@TykeMison_

5 жыл бұрын

Let me walk you down a path of questioning everyone who is a hardcore Atheist needs to follow. And stop assuming what people believe just from them trying to make a point. But where did the dirt come from? Okay our solar system's matter was centrifuged off from the Sun. Next then, where did the sun come from? Okay it coalesced from a gaseous nebula. Next then, where did the nebula come from? Next, where did the universe come from? Where did the matter for the big bang singularity come from? Current leading edge quantum theory suggests that matter, over a long enough frame of time, can just pop into existence at random. How do we know our universe was/is first/the only? How do we know there can't be some, on a scale of size, much larger being which exists within a radically different set of physical laws? How do we know reality isn't a fractal of multiple non-physically interacting dimensions where whacky, unexplainable shit can happen? How do we know ancient humans weren't visited by some kind of being? The physical reality we know could all be some hologram of an 18th dimensional hyperstring (I'd like to say "true-)universe where, on the infinite scale of conceptual time, this has all happened before (or will happen again). You can't prove to me that another higher intelligence does not or has never existed just as you can't prove to me exactly how the big bang singularity came to exist. Is that a good enough answer from someone who was raised in (and escaped) a religious cult?

I just discovered your channel; you’re articulate, kind, and demonstrate great critical thinking skills. Well done!

A friend recommended your channel and I gotta say, I'm loving your stuff so far

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

2:20: What a dumb question, tbh. I mean, i outsmart people all the damn time; literally - do they therefore not have Free Will? No, OF COURSE NOT. I always scuffed at that question. No, God being smart or all-knowing or both does obviously and most obviously not make Free Will a Lie, duh. ...On another note, adding to that: Arguably but probably, God was just called All-knowing by Humans who are so much inferior that, well... you get it, dont you!?

the scientific method is about inviting criticism of your work

@silverdeathgamer2907

5 жыл бұрын

and objectively evaluating it.

@eziospaghettiauditore8369

3 жыл бұрын

@@silverdeathgamer2907 and not resorting to nothing explodes and become something when you don't reach a conclusion that you agree with

@92brunod

3 жыл бұрын

@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 huh?

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

Grammar though?

@radioactivedragonite2420

3 жыл бұрын

Ironically Jordan Peterson tought me that

The double helix snake icon belief Peterson uttered is beyond ridiculous. It's worse even than for instance the "Egyptians were visited and taught by aliens" idea because at least not everything the ancient Egyptians managed to achieve is fully understood. It's hard to believe it never apparently occurred to Peterson that maybe the people who made these different snake iconography just saw 2 snakes mating. There are snakes all over the world and to see them mate is definitely something to behold. It looks hilarious actually, I recommend looking it up.

@Nixeu42

5 жыл бұрын

Man, with that body shape, I'm not sure there's a way to mate without it looking weird.

@Ugly_German_Truths

5 жыл бұрын

Nixeu.. what about an Ourobouros style "69"?

@FerociousPaul

5 жыл бұрын

@@Nixeu42 I mean I'm sure snakes would look at us mating and be like "Pff wtf are they doing" weird is kinda subjective

@BigHeretic

5 жыл бұрын

*Stoom* The double helix snake icon belief Peterson uttered is beyond ridiculous. It just needed saying again. And as Drew points out, Peterson is "just asking the question", his way of appealing to the nutters whilst denying any firm belief in his ridiculous idea which of course has no explanation or evidence. Peterson is a quack.

@klutterkicker

5 жыл бұрын

Dammit I had to look that up and now I've seen a close-up of snake dong.

I really appreciate that you're so honest with your patreon and appreciative of what you receive. If I weren't currently jobless I would pledge. Keep doing you man!

Your soothing, calming and intelligent-sounding voice makes listen to every thoughtful fact you mention, even better.

tHe lAnD oF mAkE BeLiEve!

@Alienshade

5 жыл бұрын

the land oF mAKE BELIEVE.

@vallisdaemonumofficial

5 жыл бұрын

iMaGiNaTiOnLANd

I wish I was as skilled at recognizing and responding to these tactics are you are. The videos are a gift, however, because we can watch them over and over. 👍🏼

I just wanted to say that I have recently discovered your channel and I have been really enjoying your content. All of these things are amazing. I do not think it is enough to know just the facts but rather, the social science behind things, especially in these times.

This is why I love skeptic channels and in particular ones like yours. It's like a master class in proper argumentation. Granted, I was aware of most if not all of these techniques. But the packaging in a concise manner with examples really drives the point home that an organic debate might not. Thank you. This is a tremendous service and is the sort of material that anyone claiming to engage in reasoned debate should be viewing. Especially those like Peterson, who claim to take a particularly reasoned position. I've certainly taken several of these videos as a point of reflection on when I've fallen back on some of these tactics. I'm certainly guilty of Point Picking from time to time in the heat of it.

@1000aaronaaronaaron

5 жыл бұрын

Skeptic channels are usually trash. This channel is much better than those "muh sJews" type of channels that are considered the "skeptic community"

@TerenceClark

5 жыл бұрын

I don't know if I've just gotten lucky with my choices, but I've seen relatively few of those. Maybe it's a natural selection thing where I chose not to watch the terrible ones after an episode.

@KaiHenningsen

5 жыл бұрын

You mean pseudo-skeptic channels (especially those trying to ride the newest waves, such as recently the anti-SJW wave that certainly wasn't actually skeptic) are trash, but real skeptic channels are fine. Who'd have thought?

@venus_envy

5 жыл бұрын

@Aaron Rainbolt agreed, I had to stop watching so many when they ran out of pseudo-science to debunk and turned their attention to social issues they obviously didn't understand at all, I feel embarrassed for them tbh.

@venus_envy

5 жыл бұрын

@Kai Agree so much, I had to ditch so many channels, how can they call themselves skeptics lol?

Deepak is sooo dishonest! In all videos i've watched so far, he has used pretty much every fallacy in the book, and he adds arrogance and pride to it. In short, he's a con, but he doesn't admit being pointed the finger at. Sadly, all he needs to do is raise his voice and spit some word salad to gain the crowd... It's a basic method and he uses it often.

@avimohan6594

4 жыл бұрын

Sure, but his word salad tripe is being successfully debunked almost everywhere now. Just wish Ravi Zacharias and Dinesh D'Souza were subjected to the same scrutiny. Although now you can't do that to the former.

@democraticdialogue7271

3 жыл бұрын

He is a spiritual guide to movie stars who are too stupid to understand if he is talking bullshit.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

2:20: What a dumb question, tbh. I mean, i outsmart people all the damn time; literally - do they therefore not have Free Will? No, OF COURSE NOT. I always scuffed at that question. No, God being smart or all-knowing or both does obviously and most obviously not make Free Will a Lie, duh. ...On another note, adding to that: Arguably but probably, God was just called All-knowing by Humans who are so much inferior that, well... you get it, dont you!?

i value your content so much- thank you for making such high quality videos. im learning how to strengthen my analysis of arguments from each one, and in this way becoming a more free, more educated individual because of your work

This is one of the best Skeptic channels on youtube. Calm, logical, relevant.

I really appreciate that you aren't afraid to give kudos to those you disagree with when they deserve it.

@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks. 😊 Even when I don’t agree with him, Jordan Peterson is often really good with responding to even unreasonable criticism well. So it really disappoints me when I see him fail in doing that

@einarabelc5

5 жыл бұрын

@@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic Great, so how would you be better? I think the whole problem is really a matter of perception. What I perceive here is that you have the luxury of being disappointed, he's real and you're sitting behind a keyboard comparing him to an ideal. And don't think for a minute you're making things better.

@TheRachaelLefler

5 жыл бұрын

I don't really see when Jordan Peterson is fair about handling criticism. What's an actual clip showing that? He's gentlemanly and polite and Canadian and everything but he almost always responds to criticism or questions by either moving the goal posts or redefining the question's precepts. Example = when asked if he believes Christianity/ the resurrection of Jesus is true, he goes back and forth and eventually has an answer that is "yes, but you have to qualify what you mean by 'true'" which kind of means he does not, not in the sense that believing Christians have true faith in that. He will not claim to lack faith nor claim faith. He says things deliberately misleading and ambiguous so that he can never be caught in a lie because he dodges making any positive or negative statements, similar to Neo dodging bullets in The Matrix. I fail to see how any of that circus ringleader level of chicanery is 'responding well to even unreasonable criticism'? Do you think a snake oil salesman who evades making any sort of statement so as to never be provably wrong deserves that praise? I'd really love to see proof of him doing so.

@TheRachaelLefler

5 жыл бұрын

He makes me as angry as Sylvia Browne if not more, because more believe his shit than hers.

@jayc2483

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheRachaelLefler I think his point about 'true' is that he has a far more...mystical? theology, rather than a more literal reading of the bible. His biblical series of lectures merge evolutionary biology with the themes of some bible stories, treating them more like the myths/stories they are rather than literal/inspired/infallible as many evangelicals today believe. As someone who grew up in evangelical circles, it's fascinating seeing him draw some truth from these stories that fit with evolutionary biopsychology. Also keep in mind he's purposefully making a distinction between scientific truth and moral truth, meaning, etc. Over-applying 'science' to everything as though all truth is knowable empirically relies on some pretty big non-empirical, philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth/reality/life. As for handling criticism, what would handling well look like? Surely you don't need to discard your own position and adopt the criticiser's viewpoint purely to prove you're open to criticism? It's OK if people disagree on things. Something else to consider - not all criticism is equal in its value. Peterson and Brand's discussion was a pretty good discussion of healthy debate. Non-combative and differing ideas without much game playing. Compared to the Newman interview which is just a masterclass in handling poorly constructed criticism.

3:31 prepares to take off his glasses... This dude thinks he's in some Epic Movie

@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic

5 жыл бұрын

Lol I’m glad someone else noticed that too

Jordan Peterson: "You can't demonstrate on every part of your being that something is not true" - Ignorance Fallacy, used as justification for his religious beliefs. *Me: T H A T ' S N O T H O W R E A S O N I N G W O R K S !*

@SuperPhunThyme9

3 жыл бұрын

Idk man, those guys were really just kind of thinking about loud....I think you're making too much of that at least. He at least admitted that he was speculating, and was at the edge of his knowledge....just compare that to the next guy.......

@guybrushthreepwood9071

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperPhunThyme9 Peterson is not "just thinking out loud" he rarely ever fully commits to a claim so he can always weasel his way out of it by saying "I never said that", "I was just speculating", etc. It's just dishonest

@suckieduckie

3 жыл бұрын

@@guybrushthreepwood9071 Then you listen to the wrong Peterson content. When he talks about things that are not religion he makes plenty of hard claims. He also has a habit of explaining what a certain study pointed out and proceeding to what that data might mean for a specific topic and in that sense is very transparant in his reasoning.

@fluffynator6222

3 жыл бұрын

@@suckieduckie Considering this guy subscribes to the Nazi conspiracy of Cultural Bolshevis- Marxism why do you even defend him?

@suckieduckie

3 жыл бұрын

@@fluffynator6222 Disregarding the amount of personal attacks against Peterson in a single sentence, because he's a legit scientist in his field and has interesting things to say. Also he seems to be willing to change his mind if provided with evidence supporting another position and his non-religious positions are based on scientific data. Also calling an Idea you don't like a nazi idea is not really a strong argument. I think the grievance studies have pointed out that the field of intersectionality and critical theory are broken beyond repair and they use the same rhetoric as the French marxists in the 50s and 60s. You might disagree with the term cultural marxism, but you have to be practically blind to not see the similarities between marxism and the woke left.

This is such an amazing analysis. It is fairly common to go over straight up formal fallacies, but to go over such nuanced ways of being fallacious is super awesome! Thanks for doing the video. It was awesome!

Adam has been our personal savior for so long. THANK YOU ADAM! I may not have ever found Drew's channel if it didn't have such an amazing backer.

@jakobus977

5 жыл бұрын

who is adam? and why is he so important?

@Bri_1219

5 жыл бұрын

@@jakobus977 Adam is/was Drew's top Patron on Patreon for, what I understand, a long time. It was through his generosity that Drew was able to do KZread full time and make these videos in the first place. He (Adam) has to step down a bit now, but I like to thank him so he can see the reach of his generosity.

@jakobus977

5 жыл бұрын

@@Bri_1219 I see. well that is very kind

@Bri_1219

5 жыл бұрын

@@jakobus977 aww thanks! 😃

@johnnytsunami9938

5 жыл бұрын

This comment is almost "religous" in nature....hmmmm interesting. It seems skepticism is a belief structure, not much different than many others.

A Muslim friend of mine planely accepted the statement that she "refused the necessity of proofs when they defied the Koran but that the world itself is evidence for Allah". Talk about evading criticism. :)

@menghao737

5 жыл бұрын

Wonder how she knew it wasn't evidence of Zeus or Odin.

@zacmorgenstern7370

5 жыл бұрын

@@menghao737 Because Mommy and Daddy said so!

@TheSmashir

5 жыл бұрын

depends on the definition of Allah he has, some school of islamic thought think that Allah and its creation, the world, is united as one, some don't. So for him it would be to think that the world is itself an evidence of the world.

@chickenisindeedmystyle7316

4 жыл бұрын

Literally every time I try to have a convo about Islam with my mother. She’s so brainwashed I have no idea what happened

@stephenchristopheryaxley-l5903

4 жыл бұрын

@@chickenisindeedmystyle7316 about what?

Thank you for making these videos. It really is helpful in handling these kinds of discussions.

Thank you Drew and Adam❤❤❤

Yeah, this is definitely one of my favorite channels!

Thank you for clarifying what I've sort-of noticed but didn't have the terminology.

This is one of the best ones yet. Keep it up!

I've encountered this one more than once: "you reject my ideas because your ego is trying to defend itself against the Truth"

@immortalfrieza

Жыл бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 God has no right to judge anyone, and most definitely doesn't have the right to send anyone to suffer for all eternity.

@immortalfrieza

Жыл бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 "Hell is separation from God." No, Hell is where God condemns those who don't lay down and do what he says. He's God. If he didn't want people suffering forever, then they wouldn't. All he'd have to do is think it and anyone, sinners or not, would not suffer. The only reasonable conclusion is that God is evil and enjoys our misery.

Do you like beer senator?

@yahwehvii3105

5 жыл бұрын

I like beer. Beer is fun. I was brewed to be beer. Beer is my friend.

@grendelum

5 жыл бұрын

Dusty Beckett - and yet sadly, our new Supreme Court Justice... smh.

@m35926

5 жыл бұрын

Did you even see Ford? No one ever wanted sex with that thing, let alone raped it. That disgusting creature has never been touched by a human in it's entire life. I believe Ford is the New Jersey Devil.

@TheRedRaccoonDog

5 жыл бұрын

+The Passionly Passionate Nightman If that was remotely true nobody would ever rape the elderly. Yet here we are.

@bobmiller3627

5 жыл бұрын

Word has it that Brett "The Gang-Rapist" Kavanaugh was drunk during his hearing, and popped some Adderall shortly before entering in order to sober-up enough to deliver his testimony. One massive side effect of Adderall is cottonmouth, and our man Brett was chugging water like a fucking bilge pump during the proceedings. Furthermore, his overly aggressive responses to the Democratic Senators that were questioning him SOUND exactly like the kind of responses a drunken asshole at a party or a bar would give. Senator Amy Klobuchar: "Have you ever drank to the point where you lost consciousness Judge Kavanaugh?" Kavanaugh: "You’re asking about blackout. I don’t know, have you?" Klobuchar: "Could you answer the question, judge?" Kavanaugh: "Yeah, and I'm curious if you have." Klobuchar: "I have no drinking problem, judge." Kavanaugh: "Nor do I." That's not how an innocent, sober man with absolutely no drinking problem whatsoever answers questions during a fucking Senate hearing. Those are the answers of a drunken rapist who knows, no matter what he says, that he's going to get confirmed for the job. Hopefully, he fucking drops dead before he can vote to overturn Roe v Wade or something else of importance :/

Im so glad I discovered your channel. Great topics, brilliantly exposed.

I laughed way too hard at that opening "Wow! The land of make believe!" bit😂

You are right. I've seen Christopher Hitchens do all of these tactics numerous times. He was once confronted by a rabbi who tore his book apart, citing pages and proving a lack of research and Hitchens just ignored it. This is the hubris of someone who is so certain he is right that he can't take anyone thinking he might be wrong. A classic Hitchens moment was when he claimed Jews invented Chanukah to compete with Christmas. Then it was pointed out to him that the story of Chanukah predates Christmas by about 300 years and he had nothing to say.

@Wolf-ln1ml

Жыл бұрын

Yep, as much as I appreciate a lot of Hitchens' stuff, he was quite far from being perfect, or even a good role model. His tendency to start talking again after a pause, right when the other person was starting to talk because it appeared as if Hitchens was done, was just infuriating.

This is great to be sorted out. There are so many logical fallacies out there it is hard not to commit one ourselves. Thanks for this expository video.

I feel that Trump does some of these topics sometimes

@skimaned4291

3 жыл бұрын

yes hes a politician are you suprised? oh wow politicians avoid questions. surprising.

The opening made chuckle, great job 👏 👍 👌 🙌

That first man completely dodged the question. If I had been the criticizer, I would have stopped the audience and brought it up.

@JeffTheHokie

4 жыл бұрын

He wasn't just asked a question, he was given a Gish-gallop. "As an atheist, since the entire bible has been disproved, how do you explain free will?" I wouldn't say he dodged the question. He responded to the other part of that Gish-gallop- the one-sentence assertion that "the entire bible has been disproved".

@duderama6750

3 жыл бұрын

@@JeffTheHokie They were both dishonest, much like our host.

@tomburnham5119

3 жыл бұрын

@@JeffTheHokie I hold no particular brief for Ravi Zacharias, but he may well have thought (perhaps correctly) that if he'd only addressed the free-will aspect, the questioner would come back with "Ah hah, then you admit that science has disproved the Bible!".

@user-rq8xx8ir9t

Жыл бұрын

yeah he didnt answer the guys question but to be fair the questioner should have just asked the question about free will then zacharias would have had to respond to that rather than the irrelevant part about the bible being disproved

@user-rq8xx8ir9t

Жыл бұрын

@@tomburnham5119 true but he could have addressed both questions

"No YOU'RE the conservative!!!" - all conservatives

@jeremysorel9188

4 жыл бұрын

Bob Miller they are also atheist scientific conservatives

@th3n3wk1dd

4 жыл бұрын

What? That doesn't make sense even in the contest of the video you are commenting on. What conservative do you know rejects the idea of conservatism? If someone called me a conservative I would be like.. yeah? so? It would be like calling a liberal a liberal... Yeah? so?

@DJHastingsFeverPitch

4 жыл бұрын

No u

@scienceium5233

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremysorel9188 very few

I would say there's a difference between saying you're asking questions, and saying that you are speculating. which are two different things. I would actually award the point to Jordan Peterson, because he says he's speculating and that he is operating at the edge of his knowledge. That to me sounds like an admittance of weakness rather than a diversion.

@intesx

5 жыл бұрын

I know this is late, but I'm going to reply anyway. Context matters... From the beginning of the conversation, to the point where you quote him, he changed his story dramatically. He initially stated it as a belief, but once questioned, he backed away from calling it a belief and called it speculation at the edge of his understanding.

@user-lt6ho5kt7v

4 жыл бұрын

@@intesx I know this will be late to, but I'll say what I think anyway. First of all, belief, from one of its definitions is 'acceptance of smth as truth, specifically without proof'. Scientist do that as well, those are called axioms. Also there are statements which you can understand and cant prove. In fact there is a theorem about this with formal proof. This is the first part about belief. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but scientists allow some leeway when they formulate ideas, meaning than they invite criticism in their chain of thoughts and then are allowed to change perspective. It appears to me that you are OK with scientists stating something then changing their mind, but you deny JBP the same possibility. In other words, he cant change opinion on anything he says. The point that he may just reconsider this is more backed up by the fact the he says 'I'm operating on the edge of my understanding'.

@propaneaccessories1309

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-lt6ho5kt7v Context matters. Jordan Peterson is in a debate. When scientists do such, they are forming hypotheses, malleable ideas on the nature of a phenomenon. They are meant to be questioned and altered to fit reality. That is also not in a debate setting. JP is in a debate setting and is making positive assertions. Those are very different things and can not be equivocated. You're altering reality to point out false hypocrisy.

@user-lt6ho5kt7v

3 жыл бұрын

@@propaneaccessories1309 not in all of those clips he is in debate setting. And the whole point of debate is to present your arguments and have your counterpart do the same thing, than examine them to establish what is actually reasonable. In order to have any productive outcome of such setting you need to allow the possibility of reconsideration otherwise you are not interested in establish actually true things, you are just out there to win regardless of what may or may not be true. Even in debate setting while also making positive assertions you need to have the ability to say 'well, I'm wrong here, let me reconsider'. Otherwise that reminds me of sophistry a lot and denying the ability to reconsider strips yourself and the your counterpart from ability to be persuaded, which is also counterproductive. To your point about scientists and their assertions in my opinion it only solidifies my point. I described above exactly that process. You need to have the freedom to change your views to establish what is true, regardless of setting. I just don't see why debate is any different to other settings apart from the fact that they are generally held publicly. Maybe your debate's goal is to destroy your opponent and die on a hill of your arguments, but that is, as I have said, akin to sophistry.

These videos have helped me form better arguments, and saved me a lot time from continuing engagement with those that perpetuate weak and pointless arguments. Most arguments we enter have little more to do than propagating vanity, but recent events have put age old disputes and injustices in the forefront of our experience. Many issues have affected the safety and livelihood of people in mass. Our future as a society will be dependant on the ability to discern reason and reasonability, from mere excercize of dominance. This is imperative if an existing functional democracy is to be maintained.

I think that was the kindest request for support I've ever heard from a youtuber

Anybody else notice Jordan Peterson kind of sounds like Kermit the Frog?

@Grim_Beard

5 жыл бұрын

Kermit the Fraud.

@rolandkushm.d.710

5 жыл бұрын

No. Only you. BTW, who is Kermit the frog?

@austinrutledge7531

5 жыл бұрын

Now I know whose voice Peterson reminds me !

@Stand_By_For_Mind_Control

5 жыл бұрын

Passive aggresive Canadian Kermit.

@BattousaiHBr

5 жыл бұрын

What an insult! Don't you dare badmouth Kermit in front of me ever again.

Your videos are wonderful. You sincerely want to communicate, not just rant and manipulate. I have learned a lot about communication from your videos. Thank you.

congrats to adam and you! happy this channel exists

Thanks for codifying those ideas I had known intuitively. I can now respond to theists' arguments faster and more thoroughly.

That clip of Kent Hovind at the end triggered me... I remember watching that video in Sunday School growing up.

There is One other very common tactic: you discuss some allegation with great certainty an vigor... but then throw in a weasel word like maybe... which allows you to disown everything you said as an investigation of intriguing, but not yet fully proven possibilities. Peterson did this in the clips included in this video. For example... in discussing some point on DNA he was challenged on some point and responded “I wouldn’t say I believe that, but I have my suspicions.” And then he further admits a point was not demonstrated objectively...”BUT I AM NOT SO SURE IT WAS NOT SHOE SUBJECTIVELY” Donald Trump also does this all the time. I remember that once during the campaign Trump seemed to say that the “real” unemployment rate is (was) over 40%; A shocking and disturbing claim. At one point I wanted to get the link to this specious claim... so I researched the claim and listened to what exactly he said. What he actually said was “Some people say the unemployment rate is over 40%”. And of course what people “heard” was that the unemployment rate actually is over 40%... no wonder we are dissatisfied. But if anyone ever challenged him on this statement, he could rightly say that he never made this claim, but only repeated something he had heard “from someone”

Another great video. Thank you for your work!

I love your channel! Continue the good work ;)

Haven't even started watching properly yet (10 seconds in). Immediate reaction, wow, that's projection like I've not seen since I was last at an IMAX

So ironic; the ad that preceded this (great) vid was Rump stumping for his magic wall. hehehe

Thank you to Adam for helping this guy make such good videos. This stuff is a little heavy for me but luckily I can rewatch until I can grasp what’s being said. So Adam, you’re making me smarter.

Thanks for doing this. Especially pointing out Ravi. Ravi needs more attention brought to him, regarding these tactics.

I'm operating at the edge of my understanding Haha. I'm.gona use that in Class.

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

I always scuffed at that question. No, God being smart or all-knowing or both does obviously and most obviously not make Free Will a Lie, duh. ...On another note, adding to that: Arguably but probably, God was just called All-knowing by Humans who are so much inferior that, well, you get it, dont you!?

The way JP sneaks his messed up political message into his “self help” message is so wack

@ianpage2509

3 жыл бұрын

I’ve got a copy of his book. Where is his political message?

@gamerberry2451

3 жыл бұрын

I've read his book and watched him a lot.I'm interested, what's his political message?

I could watch you for hours and hours. Oh! I have!!! Thank you for your intelligence and most of all your maturity.

Love your work, even if this is an old video, its priceless

That 2nd clip of Jordan Peterson killed me. The dude had so much sweat running down his forehead and was stuttering so much with his answer that I just couldn't help but burst out laughing

@klmnps

3 жыл бұрын

Because it is at the end of two and half hour of an intensive talk. See the whole lecture

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

2:20: What a dumb question, tbh. I mean, i outsmart people all the damn time; literally - do they therefore not have Free Will? No, OF COURSE NOT. No, God being smart or all-knowing or both does obviously and most obviously not make Free Will a Lie, duh. ...On another note, adding to that: Arguably but probably, God was just called All-knowing by Humans who are so much inferior that, well... you get it, dont you!?

@slevinchannel7589

3 жыл бұрын

@boxersnatcher You make it out way simpler than it is though.

@ianpage2509

3 жыл бұрын

@boxersnatcher i put about two months into listing to people who I disagreed with. So yes I can expect that would need to review someone’s material to know if they are being disingenuous.

@AW-uv3cb

2 жыл бұрын

@Internet Lurker I would say yours is a much better refutation of the "free will" thesis that the one proposed by the guy in the clip, ie. God knows everything therefore no free will. I mean, if I offer my nephew a choice of chocolate vs potatoes, I know in advance that he's going to choose chocolate - but he still chooses it without my intervention. If, however, I tell him: "You're free to choose the chocolate, just know that if you do, you may never ever watch any TV again", then obviously his choice has now been limited by the fear of consequences. It's not about the omniscience, it's about the fear of reprisal.

I love when they say "your science " 😆

@Wolf-ln1ml

Жыл бұрын

The pinnacle of that is Robin Bullock's "You and your big... educations..." 🤣

Bravo. Great show!

"im operating at the edge of my understanding." That is a completely fair response.

@varcoliciulalex

4 жыл бұрын

I think that was a bit farther than that, but I do not think it has in place in this video, it is not as central to the individuals argument.

@johnoneill7947

4 жыл бұрын

Meaning he's imagining nonsense.

Damn, it's always tough for me when I get into logical fallacies and such. Makes me remember all the times I committed them and sometimes still commit. But every bit of awareness helps avoiding them in the future. I hope. 😅

@duderama6750

3 жыл бұрын

Like our host commiting all the same sins that he sees in others. He must have a log in his eye. I don't relish the embarrassment he will feel in 20 years when he reviews this channel, if he has a conscience.

@92brunod

3 жыл бұрын

@@duderama6750 he didn't talk about sins at all so your claim is factually incorrect. In any case, what are these things he supposedly commited? You surely wouldn't try to paint him as a hypocrite without providing any evidence, would you?

@Wolf-ln1ml

Жыл бұрын

@@duderama6750 You mean he committed all those sins just like you admitted so freely what a mass-murdering rapist you are?

Wait, did Peterson try saying that double helixes just 'show up' as healing symbols? Wow there's that overrated education he got showing. There's one example of that and it's a mistake that just caught on. It's what people mistakenly think is a medical symbol; the Staff of Hermes aka the 'Caduceus'. Except the ACTUAL symbol for healing is the Rod of Asclepius, which is just a single snake twisted around a stick. Peterson never fails to give great reasons as to why he's a stupid man's idea of a smart man.

@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic

5 жыл бұрын

Not exactly. Here my video on the subject kzread.info/dash/bejne/m32arraKca6xlso.html

@Stand_By_For_Mind_Control

5 жыл бұрын

I can't imagine what 'other' double helix symbolism he's referring to other than that.

@MichelleHell

4 жыл бұрын

@keto cycler Peterson isn't convincing anyone he's smarter than 18 year old freshman.

@rexnemovi6061

4 жыл бұрын

@@MichelleHell Right. And all the people who made his book a bestseller bought his book and the people who pack his public appearances are coming because they believe that what they would read and/or hear is worth no more than an 18 year old freshman could tell them.

@TorianTammas

4 жыл бұрын

@keto cycler Why is it such a problem that Peterson was wrong? He is not very gods about antiquity and mythology outside his Christian mythology window.

Finally got around to watching this after having the tab open for a few months.

Of the many videos of yours that I've watched, this one is one of the better ones. Faith holder or skeptic, quality of thought is paramount.

I just love JP's voice, Kind of like Kermit.

@duderama6750

3 жыл бұрын

Would that make Mikhaila Miss Piggy?

@fluffynator6222

3 жыл бұрын

He's like a Netflix adaption of Dr. House that came to life.

The “feigning offense” issue you spoke about happened to me, if I understand it correctly. A few months ago, i was invited into a Discord server where a few of my friends and some others from another server we were all in were trying to start a small record label. One of the first discussions we had (for some reason) was about fraternities and sororities. Most of the people in that server lived in areas overseas where those types of things don’t extist (or at least they’re unaware of their existence), so I figured I would explain what they were. When i told them that “fraternities were only for men and sororities were only for women and there is expected to be no intermingling between the two,” one of the members told me that it offended them. I was taken aback and said all I was doing was displaying facts. This led to me being kicked and banned from the server because fraternities can only have men and sororities can only have women. 🤷🏼

@lupaswolfshead9971

Жыл бұрын

this is an individual who is suffering from the recently discovered mental illness the psychologists/psychiatrists have invented to create a medical neurological illness in which to excuse and allow the lefts cult members a free pass in their actions. All because they have a mental illness.

@immortalfrieza

Жыл бұрын

That's nuts. That's like saying that men's restrooms can only have men and women's restrooms can only have women and someone getting offended by that.

Every Middle/ High School teacher should show this video to their students in class. Well done 👏🏼

Going back into your older stuff, giving them a like & comment, too. 😊