Teo Tormo escribió:
Complétalo estableciendo una relación cogida por los pelos entre los datos, y tachán, ya has creado un "argumento de peso" con "datos objetivos".
¿Estás insinuando algo?...
A todo esto, échale un vistazo a este artículo (a favor) de Peterson por un auto-declarado izquierdista. En serio, hay bastante más en el artículo que la defensa del propio Peterson.
http://quillette.com/2018/03/22/jordan-b-peterson-appeals-left/
Mi parte favorita:
Alexander Blum escribió:
One wonders if Western intellectuals as a class have simply become complacent, fat, and soft-in-the-head. In The Guardian and The Baffler, Peterson is a “charlatan”, who uses “quackery”, and is obsessed with “conspiracy theories” of postmodern dominance.
And yet, the “conspiracy” of a postmodern intellectual class becomes a reality when the mere mention of basic scientific facts is condemned as reactionary and immoral. There is a sickly resistance to science among the left-leaning media class, where solid psychometric findings are treated as a matter of moralizing opinion. No doubt, to Peterson’s critics, such findings as average sex differences in occupational interest, or in personality traits such as agreeableness, classify as “pseudoscience.” And no doubt to Peterson’s critics, the notion that cognitive ability, or intelligence, is not arbitrary, and is also heritable, is also “pseudoscience” despite the fact that findings on intelligence are some of the most robust and replicable in all of social science.
These science-blind assumptions do real damage. If we assume that cognitive ability doesn’t matter, and build a society on ruthless ideas of meritocracy where only the cognitive elite can succeed, we will produce a broken system that will produce many, many losers. If boys and men are repeatedly told that masculinity is essentially “toxic” and in need of suppression, this may produce a society of angry, repressed men. At every level of our civilization, human biology is relevant, and engaging with it thoughtfully could not be of more critical importance. If we can’t be honest about the biological aspects of our nature now, how will we possibly deal with debates going into the future? Discussions around gene editing, cognitive enhancement, even artificial intelligence and automation are more crucial than ever. But if we cannot even agree on the basic scientific facts about our own fallible nature, how can we possibly agree on the right ways to proceed?
Me temo que las bases biológicas del comportamiento humano, la psicología evolucionista o la neurociencia no son exactamente juegos estadísticos. De hecho son de las pocas disciplinas que tienen resultados replicables... algo que no puede decirse del 99% de los frutos de la teoría crítica.
El problema no es que alguien pueda hacer mala ciencia, el problema es cuando negamos la evidencia científica porque no se acomoda a nuestras preconcepciones. Entonces sí hacemos pseudo ciencia.
