Gill is one of those hucksters who dangles words like "fact" and "evidence" in lieu of well-constructed arguments based on those things--and it's a larger problem with this crypto-reactionary nonsense choking the media.
Among other things, she argues that Peterson uses 'facts,' ergo unbiased. This is a content-free statement.
Are the cited facts accurate? Complete? Who compiled them and with what methods? How were they interpreted? Are there other reasonable interpretations available?
Are the cited facts accurate? Complete? Who compiled them and with what methods? How were they interpreted? Are there other reasonable interpretations available?
This isn't grad school stuff. This isn't even 101 (as that implies uni). You should learn this in *high school* science. She's a psychologist and thus should really know better. The concept of "facts" is not a talisman to ward off critique.
Same with data, another word she shamelessly perverts into a buzzword. Are the data complete? Are they accurate? How were they interpreted? The mere presence of a statistic is not, itself, an argument--much less an unassailable one.
The thrust of her argument is that Peterson's critics all have arts degrees, ergo they can't properly critique his highly scientific, data driven cultism.
1) No.
2) *Peterson himself* is not an expert in the sciences he cribs from. He's not a marine biologist, for instance.
1) No.
2) *Peterson himself* is not an expert in the sciences he cribs from. He's not a marine biologist, for instance.
As I noted elsewhere, if he weren't pushing reactionary pabulum, people like Gill would call this obscurantist preacher--with his arcane diagrams, lugubrious prose and lust for Jung--a pretentious Sokal-courting squishy arts degree academic.
But because his evangel is right wing--antifeminist, whinging about "PC police", etc.--it gets a free pass from that set. Worse, it's even elevated to the level of physics. What more could a cult leader ask for?
And I want to be clear--as a social scientist who does primarily theoretical work--theory has *immense* value and I do not mean to denigrate it. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of his supporters who would, with their broken fandom of science, normally disdain it.
