The Question of Truth - Answer to Bret Weinstein from the Joe Rogan Podcast with Jordan Peterson

During the Joe Rogan Podcast, Bret Weinstein gave his definitions of different kinds of truth in reacting to the argument between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, but runs into an internal contradiction within his very statement.

Support this channel:

[ryanbothun]

I'm a 23 year old engineer in North Dakota who, instead of drinking beer and watching NFL football at the lake which I would normally do, decided to leave early and attend an art reception for some Orthodox icons...When I tried to explain why to my dad, all I could think of was that it somehow involved a Canadian psychologist, an Orthodox icon carver, and gender pronouns... life is strange isn't it? hahaha Keep up the incredibly fascinating work Jonathan, it's much appreciated.

[waynemoss]

Oh Johnathan, you silly... I look up above my head and there is a big box store labelled Facts R Can't you see it?
It's right between Home Depot and Best Buy. I just plug my umbilical cord into it and download the Truth. It's so easy. That's why I never make misteaks.

[metoonunyabidness]

I had messaged you before about how I am no longer an atheist

I saw this perspective of truth in a dream
But saw it in a way that I could no longer deny the existence of God, the experience was of the nature that to describe it in words would degrade the experience
In that dream I saw the kingdom of heaven

P.S.
I have started going to an Orthodox Church because of all of this

[danielsharman]

I have studied academic, analytic philosophy for some time. The most popular theory of truth currently around is Tarski's Semantic account. Alternatives include the pragmatist, coherentist, and deflationary accounts. It is overwhelming to me how disconnected these accounts are from the debates currently happening on the web amongst those like Peterson and Weinstein. I seriously doubt whether "truth" is here being used in any sort of clear or meaningful sense.

[sunbro]

What you said about trusting other scientists work cannot be underscored enough, although I would say that they actually take each other's work on faith. They trust that if someone has a PHD in biology, they are trained to carry out the scientific method. But they have to have faith that what they are being told is accurate. Maybe I'm getting a little obtuse on faith and trust, but I have always thought that the Harris types have so much faith in other scientists.

[canbiicomedy]

Hey Jon. I came across this quote: "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
Frank Herbert, Dune.

[emmashalliker]

You sir, are simply brilliant. Thank you.

[BhutanBluePoppy]

Bret's position on truth recalls Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic, "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". Facts without values. The letter absent the spirit is dead.

[CaptCutler]

It looks like you've hit a staple in the YouTube market... the "REACTION VIDEO"! You did a good job and made some great points. Do some more of these on some more current events and you'll get more traffic. The Pageau Bros must be heard!

[danielsharman]

You do make a fair point about truth being a difficulty for psychicalists/materialists. Invoking it requires they make an ontological commitment that something exists (namely this concept of truth) which is totally unlike any of the other objects which their materialist ontology allows. The same difficulty arises with mathematical entities, ethics, and modal possibilities. Tarski's semantic account was specifically motivated by a desire to reduce truth to a physically plausible concept.

[JasonShermanYouTube]

Watching pre-covid content like this compared to today's vaccine culture is exhilarating and terrifying. 🙏

[fr.timothycurren]

A thought I’ve had rattling around upstairs for years, thanks for giving voice to it!

[theprevailingorthodoxy]

This is brilliant. Shows how a lot of these intellectuals don't have any awareness of the very structure that allows them to perform their experiments.

[aamb]

Hi Jon, I agree with this point. Have you ever read David Foster Wallace essay "Authority and American Usage"? He touches on topics like these. Although he starts off by writting about grammar which leads him to a lot of these topics. He's just a great writer and fun to read. You and Jordan Peterson speak a lot about the issues Wallace covered in multiple places but very clearly in that essay. Would be a good reference since he has pointed out a lot of these issues in great clarity and are more applicable even today. Thanks for posting.

[Javier-ilxi]

First of all, thanks for your amazing videos, Jonathan.

Second, I'd like to ask you: What is the name of the piece of music you use for your intro?

Cheers

[paulet]

“I looked on the top shelf and it wasn’t there.” That phrase is Dynamite! Is it a Canadian saying or something? I really like it. I’ve seen the video where you were onstage with Jordan and Brett, and that discussion of truth was well, I couldn’t believe Brett didn’t seem to understand what you were saying. After all, why would a discipline (science) born out of the Christian tradition (Catholicism?) be the highest truth? It can’t be because science didn’t give rise to theology. Just the opposite. Am I understanding correctly? That “well MY opinion is fact” attitude is so pervasive on the left and the silent majority is sick to death of it. Jordan, you, Paul VanderKlay... have all renewed my faith. The world has turned upside down, and it is so refreshing to hear what I think articulated by you guys ... and articulated SO WELL. Thanks. I woke up thinking about this stuff this morning and despite being tired, I had to get up and write down my thoughts. I am actually entertaining the idea of writing again as a hobby / goal. I had given it up as it seemed that there was an information overload going on, and most of it was b.s. I didn’t want to add to the steaming pile of manure. Plus, I had some emotional trauma associated with writing and trust, so that still (over 10 years later) is making it difficult for me to get back at it. I’m going to try hard to get over those issues, and I hope I can add something to the discussion, even if it is just to myself and furthering my own understanding.

[janu]

So you're saying what's important is not our theories of reality but trust in the epistemology scientists abide by to produce theories? Or is it the trust in scientists to abide by agreed upon epistemology to produce theories of reality?

[pedantus]

I've been looking for the right word to use in place of the word, faith, and your abrupt, reflexive, self editing moment corrected the use of "faith" with the word, "trust". This was very helpful, thanks. I think that faith and trust both refer to emotive states, whereas belief refers to a cognitive state, therefore; I trust (/experience "faith") that Science is the 'religion' with all of the *objective* evidence as basis for the cognitive experience of "belief" ("faith" being the target emotion/sensation of well being)...; )

[thelorddrinian]

so, your point is that BW doesn't actually "know" that porcupines don't shoot their quills out because he hasn't actually tested that, but rather he's relying on hearsay, or faith, to ground that belief? thus, his "lab tested truth" isn't something that he's even using?
but... what if he had tested a porcupine? would that discount your argument?
and...even if your point is true, wasn't BW's point more about this "metaphorical truth" being valuable in some way...
i mean, couldn't BW just say, "you're right, i don't have 'lab tested truth' about this... but i should, and if i did, i'd be more justified in my belief about it."
...
just trying to clarify your point here. :-)

[CraigTalbert]

I'm highly skeptical of people that redefine the word "true" to just mean everything that they agree with. For people that rail against the cults of personality that caused so much suffering the 20th century, what you're saying sounds a lot like North Korean propaganda.