Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Differences With Jordan Peterson (Pt. 3) | Michael Shermer | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" video.

  1. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a statement about epistemology, not a statement about truth. I can say (claim) that one time at an intersection, I saw a pigeon with another pigeon in its claws, swoop down and toss that pigeon directly under the tires of a moving pickup truck in the lane next to me. A pigeon-murder, if you will. That is an extraordinary claim. It is true. Maybe it requires extraordinary evidence for you to believe it; but it does not require anything but the act in itself, to be true.
    8
  2. Some collections of observations (and connections between them) track reality better than others.
    2
  3. Both of them have spoken to him. Dave Rubin has done so at length. There is non-zero value in hearing their point of view. It's not so weird that it's an argument, what else would it be? I suspect if you asked Peterson what he believed on many subjects, you'd get an argument as much as an answer, as he thought things through out loud.
    2
  4. There's a huge amount of room for intuition, as the human mind doesn't seem capable of consciously processing of all the observations the senses collect. Morality, religion, poetry art, literature, and other fuzzy subjects draw from this realm.
    1
  5. That's because he's extraordinarily skeptical.
    1