Most Science is NONSENSE! w/ Jordan Peterson 

Hi Matt, big fan of your content. There is this preacher on RU-vid (Cleveland Street preachers) he recently made a post about the virgin Mary. I thought you might be interested in checking it out. I believe he used to be catholic but is now protestant. Also has some really good content. 🙏

Jordan forgot completely the most profound person to this day, Greta Thunberg...The world may need a some sort of Jesus or something like it, but not any who are just seeking a fame with various means without any sense at all... I don't know which is worse, the mediaval times when any knowledge was pratically unable to spread by anyone to frorish or this day, when all kind of people can freely spread there nonsense in a second to everywhere in the world??? I know that physics are now talking about 'fine tuning' of the universe but what we need in our world is more like a hard core tuning in all possible fronts...

Hollow oh noooo

the big bang was conjured by a catholic. it wasn't in no way anti-religious as a hypothesis and did not disprove anything, if anything, it molds in line with theological understanding on the Character that is God. Infact, most of Big Bang is conjured from philosophy and imagination, then conjectured over the concept of all formed levels of radiation, implies the Big Bang exists simply because radio waves, light, etc, just implodes and goes outward, so they assume the universe expands and explodes in said direction..... I think. im no scientist and i actually sucked in science class despite trying hard. But one thing i will tell you. Big Bang has been used a political tool to say to dumb innocent folks watching TV to believe there is anti-evidence for a God existing. it all in fact originated from aristotle. Aristotle talked about an infinite observable universe, and many jews and muslims disliked it, over time Christians went back and forth saying yes and no to it being infinite and expanding.

Jordan Peterson knows nothing about how the scientific community works, because if he did he would not say such things. Climate change is real and I know because I can read scientific data and I live in a coastal town.

Sadly, sometimes he is mistaken - I've caught him at it - an opinion should be based on truth, or it's a bad opinion

Sometimes I think JP is the John the Baptist of our day....Repent!

I heard that Herman Munster was suing Kerry for Cultural Appropriation.😅

A dishonest duplicitous politician who is colluding with ridiculous and economically destructive popular delusions.

"the fact that God exists" Not true but it would be nice to have some entity to blame for cancer, malaria, earthquakes, birth defects and oh-so-much more suffering that is part of the natural world. The biggest joke, of course, is the common nonsense heard from Christians of the "merciful Jesus". There's a real scam.

when a psychologist gets sh!tty, you know that he's lost his fairness of mind - he has reasons to be pissed off, but he devalues his own expertise when he ceases to be the adult in the room and gets vituperative

"The climate scam" Maybe you can explain why insurance companies are pulling out of areas where climate has changed the odds, why oil companies are making changes to their practices due to climate changes, the increase in storm severity in the Midwest, the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, retreating glaciers, increased flooding in Miami. That's just a taste.

@@jjhpor Yeah, just a taste of the propaganda. Why not look at the 100 year downward trends in Hurricanes, Tornadoes Typhoons and wild-fires. No trend in droughts and floods and the 95% fall in weather related deaths over the last 100 years. Stop relying on CNN or the BBC for your information, sonny. If you believe Gore, you're a prize fool.

@@jjhpor Even now the many of those who said that climate science was a scam have been mugged by reality. In Australia we had a Prime Minister who declared that 'climate change is crap'. His successor took a lump of coal into parliament. He said electric vehicles would kill the weekend. They would not tow a boat. (They do,) Then the black summer fires of 2019 and floods hit. The conservative government was tossed out. The conservative parties now pay lip service to renewable energy while trying to keep fossil fuels going for as long as possible.

​@jjhpor so what has been happening all throughout time. Change, in general. Let me guess the solution is more tax.

@@jjhpor You think that cherry-picking a few cases is an argument? Over the last century hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes and wild-fires are significantly down in frequency. Over the same period world-wide, droughts and floods have not changed in frequency, and deaths due to weather events are down by 95%. But chicken-little tells us that there's a climate crisis.

Colleges are largely about a handful of things these days: grants, the publishing racket, and sports top the list. The comment of consensus bears weight and dovetails with the publishing racket: peer review [in so many cases] has devolved into goaltending, be it of doxies or competing grants. You could arrive at an idea, have & explain logic or methodology to at least indicate a topic is worth mulling over, and a half dozen or so may jump up and say "hyet" in unison... and you are self publishing, just like that - locked out for the gravy trains sake, to keep your citations from being common [if you do pursue and persist]. Its bona fide flat earther territory, intellectually speaking. So there's a weakness in western methods: we are conditioned to accept format and volume in place of quality of argument. Pile enough agreeing citations together and all of a sudden someone is "smart"? That's a house of cards - and what most degrees are worth these days, I'm afraid. People having paid tens of thousands for some third party imprimatur face a real conundrum, especially in this era of cancel culture - disagree with an institution and they may take [or destoy the value of] your degree, and do it without proof. One thing seems true to me: the quality of science may be inversely proportional to the amount of government involved. I'm reminded of the barbs thrown at Faraday, on account of his observations were not preceded by sufficient institutional gravitas, per the hubris loaded "intellects" of his day.

This is indeed a very intresenting topic as we really don't need any pre teen 'Greta Thunbergs' to preach us about anything. Some hysterical reactions in societies around the world and so has reminded of a panic and brainwash... not that it has had anything to do with the reality. Yes ofc our planet has taken some toll of the human activity, but it isn't that simple in any shape or form. Now that religion don't have too big part of a normal persons life in westewrn world, other ideas and ideologies are filling that void and usually they are compelety nonsense in any given measures. Like Lt Ripley( this beeing a movie and completely fiction ) says in 'Aliens' as she was investigated by her former actions said: 'Has the IQ suddenly dropped as I was away?'... Yes indeed... You can ask this today too. One obvious thing is that our world has been more and more devided to even smaller groups and and even one vs one situations because we have promoted induvidualism as a some kind of virtue even with personal opinioins without any arguments at all to back it up. That is completely nonsense. The first thing to do is change the whole school and education system and bring back the basics of philosophical foundation that is the basis for all modern science anyway, regardless what you think. And also make pscycholygy a mandatory subject and also require everyone to be tested that way if they want to even have a student place in univercity or high school, and more over, if they ever want to pursuit a political and social status... In my country our army has made these actions almost from the day one to ensure, that no person who is instable or could be harmful to others( to this particular society ofc ) would not ever get a gun in his or hers hands ever. Even in wars no one wants maniacs nor other kinda of unrealibities in their team.

Keep watching him. He makes more sense than the governing trash acrosd the globe

Thanks Matt.........can you the video link in your comments. Tks 👍👍

@@raymondbencak7539 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T_io0ARX7rk.htmlsi=VIDpF1triSxoqsEA

It was a beautiful piece of psychology.

It is a sign of a hysterical loss of objectivity and rigour.

@@pshehan1 lol ok bro

@@augustcawiezell9699 Glad you agree.

"Those that have will be given more, and those that dont have, even what they do will be taken from them."

Yep! Simplistic explanations and solutions are wrong more often than not. Poverty is multifactorial. But even that's not the right way to think of it. Poverty is the norm historically. Wealth is the exception. The real question isn't why are there poor people. The question is how to create wealth.

It's also known as the Matthew principle.

I don't think the premise is exactly correct. For example, you must first have some kind of definition for what poverty actually is... or else you devolve into a tautology of saying that the bottom 20% are 'the poor', therefore, there's this amazingly consistent statistical pattern that societies always have 20% of their population living in """poverty.""" The real question is, what percentage of people actually live in poverty, and that can vary widely due to local economic systems, e.g. free market capitalism versus communism -- it would be silly to compare the bottom 20% in North Korea, to the bottom 20% in America. One is dying of starvation, while the other is dying of morbid obesity. In other words, there are no actual 'poor people' in America, while everyone in North Korea is poor, except the one fat communist man, with all the money and all the food. This is not to disprove the ancient wisdom that _there will always be poor people among us,_ but rather to disentangle economic statistical quintiles from a more concrete measure of poverty.

@@timrichardson4018 To create wealth, you should make a plan that leads to you having the ability to *use money, to make money.* For example, straight out of high school, get a job in home construction/remodeling. Save all your paychecks, until you can buy a fixer-upper house to flip. You're not going to build wealth by working for a paycheck... but you can choose a job that conveniently leads to an actual wealth building path (such as house flipping). Then you leverage your profit from that first flip, to flip 2 more houses. And the profit from those two, to flip 4 more. The pattern continues until you acquire sufficient 'critical mass' wealth, to retire and live off the interest. It could be anything... something that suits your natural talents and abilities. Some people might want to start a food cart and scale up to a restaurant chain. Or get a job as a mechanic, and build a path to flipping cars, and owning a car lot. The key is that working a regular job is not going to lead to wealth. You must somehow harness the power of money, to create profit.

It was a "clever" wording. Most people did not listen closely and it was not the dentists recommendation of the actual brand. Much was excluded from their posted survey results. The survey resulted the quoted was '4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum', it did not state which recommend not chewing gum of any sort, how many were surveyed - maybe only 5, nor how they rounded their results. It isn't a falsehood, but it isn't the whole story either.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies - including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook - co-authored a paper that settled this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of the studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. You are quite literally wrong.

@@shreddedhominid1629 "Climate consensus studies" 🙄 🤡🌎

@@williamgaines9784If you have evidence that disputes it, you should present it. But, an eye roll is not a very strong rebuttal nor is a clown emoji. If you can only offer personal attacks and not actually refute the argument or points made, then it’s no longer a civil discussion.

@@ethanhenley2103 The title, "climate consus study", alone deserves the eyeroll and the clown emoji. Since the climate estimates, projections, and conclusions are based on modeling that has been inaccurate for 50+ years, there is no "evidence" to support the consensus. That the climate changes is undisputed, its triggers and causes are manifold. The conclusion that a single compound from a single source as the root is wholly unscientific.

way to prejudge an entire occupation! Learn some science and judge for yourself, case by case

Do you know any scientists? All the ones I know are decent humans trying their best. Doesn't make them perfect, but they are far from what you claim.

You have no idea. Scientist spend their lives questioning science. You get a lot more kudos for correcting the record than putting another brick in the wall.

Absolutely, I would love to see what percentage of this so-called science counters the interests of those paying for it.

@@swansonz3534 In the 1970s Exxon scientists sent reports to management on global warming which came to the same conclusions as scientists in public institutions. Management marked them confidential and filed them away for decades. It disbanded its research unit on these matters. Scientists at Australia's premier scientific organisation, CSIRO had its research group into these matters disbanded by a conservative government which was close to the fossil fuel lobby. Its leader declared that 'the science of climate change is 'crap'.

Legitimate Scientists accept grant funding not knowing the source and the grantors don’t know who they’re donating to. It’s a DOUBLE BLIND relationship so that the research isn’t biased.

sometimes

@@SupernalOne Most of the time. Pay attention to what he says.

@@bite-sizedshorts9635 What do you mean pay? What do you mean to? What do you mean he? And what do you mean says?

Don't know if you are aware, but there is a thing in science right now called the 'Replication Crisis', which goes right to the heart of what Peterson is saying. Might be good reading if you aren't familiar. I was trained in science (biology) but when I realized just HOW political it was I changed to another major. Now I work in a corporation as an engineer and only have to deal with inter-departmental politics, must less problematic than dealing with a government!

@@rbarnes4076 Yes that's an issue that has always been at least a niggle but is growing exponentially. Even if we did science perfectly it's interesting to conceive of how we could be drastically mistaken based on what we don't know, but the increasing reliance on studies that have not been replicated is scary to consider because it means we don't know a lot that we think we do. And the indications based on those that have failed replication are that there are a lot that wouldn't fare well if anyone bothered to try. Add to that the increasing fabrication... Frustrating to say the least. And then, as you say, the politics. Most peer review systems break down due to poor adherance to best practice and politics. Well known researchers will find ways to highlight their identities so as to bypass the anonymity and garner favourable reviews. That's if their field is even big enough that it's not already obvious based on what labs work on what projects. I could go on but you know yourself. We haven't even mentioned money.

@@colmcille9669 Have you ever submitted a manuscript for review or been asked to review one?

@@pshehan1 No I only ever contributed to one research project in a minor capacity during an internship between years in my degree.

Peer Review is used by social studies NOT by legitimate scientists.

No they are not.

@pshehan1 I am the father of two researchers, one in Materials Science, the other in Computer Science. Both are working on engineering projects for well known corporations. When I was young I visited the chemistry department at Imperial College in London and whilst this is one of the top chemistry departments in the country I was informed there was no science going on there. What did they mean by that, I wondered? Well the reality is that every element on the periodic table has been found, every element has been reacted with every other element and so inorganic chemistry is a done deal. Organic chemistry offered more opportunity for exploration, but there are fewer and fewer opportunities for new discoveries. So if they aren't doing science what are they doing? Well chemical engineering for big corporations who want reactions that are faster, purer, higher yielding, and less polluting with less waste. They are using known science to achieve this, not discovering anything new.

@@PGHEngineer I am a retired scientist. I did my PhD in a chemistry department studying organometallic compounds by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. There was plenty of science going on there. I think the Imperial College man was being somewhat facetious. I have seen papers on 'pure' or 'basic' research come out of Imperial College. I published a paper which showed that the published value nuclear quadrupole moment of moybdenum- 95 and molybdenum-97 was too large by a factor of ten. This is important in NMR spectroscopic studies. I showed that the measurement of NMR relaxation times could be used to give information about the structure and motion of organometallic molecules. This was basic research but later I found a paper of mine cited in studies of liquid crystals in commercial purposes. In a department of surgery at the University of Melbourne, I studied the structure of a class of peptides called gastrins, the proliferation of which in the intestines is associated with bowel cancer. They are inactive without the attachment of ferric ions. I replaced the ferric with chromium ions which inhibited the growth of the cells. With others in the group I hold a patent for the possible treatment of bowel cancer. There is always more to discover which often seems to be 'useless' knowledge at the time but turns out not to be though corporations concentrate on carrying out or funding research with a clear applied goal in mind.

You can blame 99% of this "Climate Change" pseudoscience on the National Science Foundation - which should be defunded and privatized!

Optimist.

How many youtube comments do you post everyday, OP? I see you in the comments of every video I go to, no matter the topic.

It affects both. Remember "cold fusion"?

Or as I refer to them: John "Potato-Head" Kerry and Albert "Einstein" Gore.

@@drew6194 I'll accept that. I think it was Rush Limbaugh who used to refer to these people as Chicken Little. They speak and behave as if the sky is falling.

The connection is paganism/Satanism. Worshiping the 'weather gods', and child sacrifice. Everything goes back to the essence of Satanism, which is rebellion against God's creation, by stealing, killing, destroying, perverting, distracting, thwarting, etc. God said 'be fruitful, and multiply'... therefore Satan wants the opposite. Population control. Abortion. Worshiping the weather and the dirt or the trees, instead of God.

Never happened to me.

@@bite-sizedshorts9635 Yet...

An analysis done in 2011 on climate research found that 9 of 10 authors that have doubts about climate change have ties to Exxon Mobile. The real money is in politics and oil. Spreading doubt so that the red team can score points on the stupid libs. Our children and our children's children will see the fruit of our labor in what we did to preserve the future.

A fatuous comment made by know nothings.

​@@pshehan1Lol!

@@themysteriousdomainmoviepalace And that is precisely the kind of argument know nothings put.

​@@pshehan1Shall I die on this hill? 😮

False prophets seeking profits.

...and they want to do it while lounging in their favourite chair sipping wine and eating cheese.

Soros

You just described Peterson beautifully. The guy is trying to replace learning institutions evolved over centuries with his own learning programme. Remember this is a guy who made such bad personal choices that all his family were sick enough to have to resort to some real extreme practises. Every video he made in the early days he was drinking Diet Coke. He’s so off target and ego driven that there’s no way I’d follow his teachings. If I did I might have to start smoking again because there’s no way I had a mystical experience. I just stopped. Like my dad did, and brother, and mum, and grandad, and aunties and uncles.

But asking, nay DEMANDING, folks freeze to death in the Winter so he can fly everywhere in a private jet is evil. His, Kerry and ilk, motto is: YOU must sacrifice YOUR present AND future so that I can enjoy comfort today while pretending to help the unwashed masses.

Intelligent people can look at the real evidence and see that the so-called experts are lying. You can compare hundred year old photos of coastlines with current ones and see that the oceans have not risen a measurable amount.

Jawohl! Ver is zee blaue Korrect Zots booble?

So who do you trust, exactly? Is the earth flat? Was Stalin really that bad of a guy? How do you know? I'll tell you: you trust consensus. You do it for everything else. Your confirmation bias (a psychological idea, ironic) gets in the way of your thinking clearly because your brain doesn't like the feeling of having to change.

Modern science is science conducted in the modern era. It is much too large an undertaking for scientists to become experts in anything other than their own field. Mine is nuclear magnetic resonance. I did my PhD in applications of the technique in chemistry. As my career progressed, I moved into applications in medical research. I doubt that there is unanimity in any field.

Distilled water has no energy content that can be accessed without first splitting it into H2 and O2. A process that requires alot of energy. LPG generally is generally cheaper at the cost of ~30% mileage per liter of fuel. Whether or not that is economically viable depends on the cost of the conversion kit and the gas/lpg costs ( which is usually a tax issue ). Some math work will determine whether or not such an exchange is economically viable. A certain % of the vehicles in a nation using LPG can be worthwhile...it produces less CO2 and other pollutants and it allows for more total fuel for a given amount of crude oil. Again economocs will stermine what is more worthwhile for an economy.

Did the sheik also buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Not really, and not sure why Catholics waste their time listening to him. Capitalism can help alleviate poverty, but it's not the only thing alleviating poverty. There are such things as cooperative economics and economics where people matter. Capitalism is a system where people mostly don't matter and only cares about the consumer and not enough about the producers. As for climate change, as Catholics we have to learn how to steer the world back to having union with nature and learn to develop technology with the aid of nature. Contraceptives are a byproduct of capitalism and modernism and industrialization. If we knew better how to develop technologies without disposing nature and human beings we wouldn't have contraceptives. Science and medicine would have reproductive technologies like NaPro in way more advanced stages than they currently are. This is part of changing the way we live and consume goods, and unfortunately conservatives like Jordan Peterson don't ever talk about that.

Pardon me but… What exactly is he “spot on“ about? Capitalism is a system that needs poverty and exploitation of labor in order to continue to function. It doesn’t do anything to alleviate poverty, what it does is disguise poverty and then have pseudo scientific justification for why poverty is somehow “the natural state“. Poverty is a creation of lack of resources, capitalism is the hoarding of resources by those with either control of capital or easy access to capital. Capitalism turns people into commodities and competitors. It is an incredibly dehumanizing economic system that views human beings as disposable. And it’s amazing to me that people can look at Jordan Peterson and think that he is speaking some kind of Bible truth given that his field of expertise is clinical psychology and not history economics or even theology. And given his track record he wasn’t very good at psychology either. He was not respected in his field and he’s not famous for his psychology. What he is famous for is his crank political positions and his sophistry.

@@Montfortracing that puzzles me as well. I can understand why a lot of the Christian Heretics in the form of the prosperity gospel and the other dominionists would listen to him because he is just as much of a dogmatic crackpot and cynical opportunist as they are. He’s also severely mentally unwell, so I’m just a little confused as to why Catholics would even remotely listen to him.

Yes, a lot of people with scientific training are just in it for the money, like a lot of ministers, like Jordan Peterson.

The foundation of the scientific method is doubt. Most scientists today get angry if you doubt them. This results in scientific dogma. *edited to add the word method.... I'm drunk.

To quote Dr. Michael Crichton: "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Evolution is still a theory. It’s criteria crumbles the more we learn of genome and the complexities of life. Scientific method has still not succeeded in replicating any part of the process.

@@peternicholsonu6090 who told you that, an apologist ?

Maybe. I wonder if Trent has changed his opinion on feminism since the Carrie Gress episode? I theologically more "normie" but I actually fully agree with Gordon on this one, that feminism and Christianity are incompatible or "inadmissible"

Sadly, these days, most science is nonsense. All you need to be a scientist in this brave new world is to repeat these words: "I'm a scientist."

Peterson should know better. Name calling is not science. And he is stealing from the Hitler rants parodies where Goebbels is called Skeletor.

The job description for research scientist, either in university or private sector, is “take their money and tell them what they want to hear.”

Your analysis on climate change should be deeper than Jordan Peterson's. You're a Catholic, right? If so, then your understanding of climate change should be more nuanced instead of just stopping at "it's not true."

@@Montfortracing Exactly because you are Catholic you should be skeptical about affirmations, like "there's too many of us - bad for the planet", etc, made by ecologists. Ecologism, in the meantime, has gone too far!

@@alinucalinuc4124 you're right, we definitely need to be careful with those kinds of affirmations. But that doesn't mean we have to harbor denialism about climate change. Of course we need to fend off those population control people, but as Catholics we need to get people to look at the environment away from a consumerist impulse. Even if a Catholic has difficulty understanding the science and chemistry of the climate we know we're not here on earth to haphazardly use the earth's resources however we please. Paul VI, JPII, Benedict and Francis have all written about this and we at least should start by understanding integral ecology and develop a deeper understanding of creation beyond Jordan Peterson.

@@Montfortracing Scientist who study climate change are not experts in the environment or population or anything else. They may have opinions about these things and write or speak about them, but they can be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, followers of any of religion or atheists.

Scientists do not "believe". They seek to understand.

Why? I worked for a manufacturer that made some sail yachts.

@@bite-sizedshorts9635 Well then maybe you could see clear to support oil field workers whose livelihood has not received the same consideration.

It is true that not everyone can be in the 1% but I am guessing he means people not dying of starvation, easily curable diseases and cold. Because food security health and stable homes themselves are wealth. Or do you think everyone should own a Ferrari?

Where?

@@user-vh7ks8px3s Looks like they changed it. lol

Many of the scientists involved never signed the final draft. But the criminals claimed they did to obtain the high numbers. Science is not a "consensus." The "consensus" used to be that the sun went around the earth. Science has to be proved through experiments using the scientific method. Their always wrong 10-year predictions show they are unfamiliar with the scientific method.

I know, right? It's absurd because conservatives complain about folks like Noam Chomsky commenting on fields he's not an expert in, yet they're ok with Peterson speaking on a range of issues. It's quite pathetic.

@@Montfortracing Anyone with intelligence can see the problems with the climate hoax. The evidence is clear as can be. If the scientists were correct, we would have frozen to death in the 70s, or there would be no snow in the entire world by 24 years ago. Zero of their predictions have come true. This doesn't require specialized knowledge like some things do. But you stupid leftists can't tell the difference. You fail.