A large part of Peterson's problem of credibility is his continual reliance upon the late Hugh Nibley for his philosophy of science. Is it pure brainwash that Peterson continues showing Nibley's silly and incorrect views instead of actually using the scientists today for learning about what science can do and cannot do, and what the attitudes of scientists are? Nibley's entire approach is just an overweight strawman for crying out loud. Does Dr. Peterson like, think he is going to offend the Holy Ghost and sensitivity of the Lord's spirit if he uses actual scientists than using Hugh Nibley or something?!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
As far as sawing off a branch, if science is such a free-for-all thanks to human error, no matter how much effort is put into controls, then what should we make of a rogue antiquarian writing well outside his field with absolutely no oversight whatsoever, to an audience that wants to hear what a crock science is in order to feel better about religion?
Sounds to me like Nibley just sawed off the branch upon which the Mopologist tree fort sat. lol
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
