“You’re Extremely British” | Meeting Peter Boghossian
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Peter Boghossian is an American philosopher, a founding faculty member at the University of Austin, and coined the term "street epistemology" as a method of helping people to change their minds.
- LINKS
Peter Boghossian's UA-cam channel: @drpeterboghossian
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Introduction
0:52 What is "street epistemology"?
20:08 Challenging the view that the Earth is a globe
30:00 Talking about belief in God
40:33 Can we ascribe probability to beliefs?
44:44 "Pre-existing linguistic community" argument
1:04:57 Can there be an infinite regress?
1:19:56 Science vs philosophy
1:28:50 Would God care about who we have sex with?
1:41:16 How likely is God's existence?
1:53:38 Outro
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Thank you for having me on your show Alex. I genuinely enjoyed our conversation.
I love your book, "A Manual For Creating Atheists." The part about pretending to know the unknowable inspired me to write my own book titled, "Pretending to Know the Unknowable."
Hello 🙂 I found street epistemology interesting but when I looked into it I realised that it is not neutral at all. It is based on a belief system centering around doubt and scepticism. That is not necessarily a bad thing but it all depends on wether one is doubting towards a healthy direction or not since everything can be doubted. I think this was betrayed when you revealed that you decided where to move the person and then executed your choice. That is manipulation isn’t it?
I learned a lot. I had already studied part of this but I love how you made me think deeper.
You're a conspiracy theorist and a grifter and we see through you.
@@dionysis_ what would a neutral version of street epistemology look like?
Alex: "can't questions be euphemisms for arguments?"
_Capturing Christianity has left the chat._
Now why do you suppose cam says questions are not arguments?
@@macmac1022 because that was his catchphrase like btw, Christianity is true
@@macmac1022Cameron said that in his video "Analyzing 10 atheist slogans"
@@resinsminia actually, it was Alex who brought that up in that video as the final point, reversing the prompt of the discussion to focus on a theistic slogan! I just rewatched it the other day :)
Sometimes I actually remember to ask myself,”Am I asking this question of _____in order to create closeness or distance?”And then I must be bluntly honest with myself.
glad you pushed back on that language thing
Alex’s ability to track a conversation and not be steered off course, in all of these interviews, is absolutely astounding 👏🏼 Loving the direction and vigor brought to the channel recently! You’ve come a long way from that bedroom with the loft, Sir!
*post edit* the comment was made before the bedroom was mentioned
The paintbrush discussion was really vexing. The metaphor was crystal clear, it's applicability to infinite regress was crystal clear, and Peter was seemingly being intentionally obtuse as a way of not being schooled by Alex - again. I was a little taken aback earlier, at 106:28, when Peter did not seem to know that all science, unavoidably, is built on a foundation of philosophical presuppositions. And amazingly, there seems to be plenty of well published researchers in the hard sciences who don't understand this.
Peter, nevertheless, has a point in that scientists don't get enough philosophy in their training, or it's cursory and at the margins of some other topic - measurement, for example - and grad students in philosophy don't get enough training in empirical science. One of the first things Einstein did at the University of Berlin in the 1920s, in the wake of earth-shaking double slit experiments, was to try to bring philosophers into the physics department, so as to have them in-house, as it were. He knew that to understand what was going on, they were going to need the kind of insights that philosophy can bring.
There was an amusing "Holy shit" moment early in the interview where Peter brought up an off-the-beaten-path topic from Wittgenstein, and Alex immediately engages on that, and Peter says, a little incredulously, "you know about that?" - and his discomfort is palpable for the rest of the interview. Haven't seen but a couple of Alex's interviews, but he seems to be underestimated by the people in the interview at the beginning, probably because he is so young. Also haven't seen any stuff related to theism versus atheism since Hitch died, which probably needs no explanation.
Ugh. It's so sad that people think little boi's like Alex are intellects.
Yes, it’s impressive when the older “more senior” philosopher criticises his choice of direction for the conversation and he doesn’t back down one inch or shift tac one degree and just politely carries on as if it were never mentioned. It actually takes nerve to do that. You can tell he’s been podcasting for years to develop that skill even though he is still very young.
@@leeds48I agree about the paintbrush discussion. That was jaw-dropping that a philosophy professor couldn't track what was going on. "Are you making an argument about free will?" He said at one point.
@@leeds4845:36 is where the Wittgenstein reference is. That was an odd reaction from PB.
"...you're sort of maybe like 60% sure that it would be over 95% sure..." Great.
Alex was amazing and really had to make Mr Boghossian work in this interview. Alex's questions and insights were remarkable.
I think Peter's arguments are just so weak and flawed that... there was nothing else that could be done.
haha that was funny but tbh makes sense to say yes, it depends on what's the other 40%. Most of the time I'm 95%, then there are weeks that you're reading certain books and feel 100%, and then maybe if you're watching a bunch of theist books and interesting biographies, where every intelligent person was a believer, confidence drops to 90%. But the 60-20-20 it's always >= 90%.
Alex: I can't put a percentage on it.
Peter: ok how about a scale of strongly agr...
Alex: 45%.
Well, he was talking about that he cannot see the difference between 60 and 62 percent for example in such issues but I guess 45% is slightly below 50% and 50% would mean a complete neutrality where you believe the possibility that God exists is exactly at the same level as the possibility that God does not exist, so 45% means that he is slightly closer to the possibility that God is real than that God is not real.
@@nikokapanen82 actually is the other way around: at 1:47:20 you can see Alex says "The probability that that is the case, that there is such a god is maybe I don't know like maybe 45".
But that wasn't my point, what I found funny was that he was just saying he couldn't put a value of probability on belief and then when presented with a different scale he immediately put a value of probability on belief :P
@@veganoluisThat's what I appreciate in Alex though. You see it so often where people are refusing to answer the "opponents" question and it makes for an extremely fruitless conversation.
He might not have answered the question to his full satisfaction, but he allowed to conversation to move on. During the whole podcast they are never stuck on a topic.
I liked that he relaxed and allowed the conversation to move. With the disclaimer that exact percentages are a bit silly, he translated his general feeling into a number that would make sense to Peter.
I couldn’t understand why Boghossian held on to some of his views for so long, given the strong - and seemingly unaddressed - arguments given by Alex. Talking specifically about the ideas of language and infinite regress.
I like the push back from Alex in this video.
I do too, it illustrates just how idiotic Millenials are.
It's really a testament to Alex's skill and talent as an orator that I personally find him WAY easier to understand when he speaks compared to someone with 5x more years of life and professional experience. Peter is a bit of a slog to listen to, he gets overly wordy and isn't always very accurate and deliberate with his words. Listening to Alex on the other hand is absolutely effortless.
I think it was Orwell who spoke about it being far more virtuous to be able to explain complex ideas in simple terms, than it is to explain simple ideas in complex terms. Think he also spoke about how politicians speak with unnecessary verbosity and lots of long, complicated, deceitfully impressive sounding vocabulary, and that this is NOT how people should aspire to speak even if to the uneducated it may sound like they _must_ be really clever because "listen to all those long complicated words they're using!". On the contrary, a truly clever person shouldn't alienate you by using overly complex language, they should rather make YOU feel clever by proxy, through their ability to explain complicated ideas in terms that the layman can understand, ergo, making the layman feel like they've actually understood and have learned something.
Anyway I got really carried away. Alex is a hell of an orator, and he is definitely of the kind that makes you feel clever by proxy, because of how easy he is to listen to and understand, despite the complex and heavy subject matter!
I think Alex is a clearer speaker than Peter because he is a clearer thinker
Yeah, I think it was Aristotle who said that a good writer should be able to express with the language of the common people, but think like the wise.
Weird. For me it was the exact opposite. Alex lost himself in somewhat weird, open-ended arguments whereas Peter tried to bring structure into the discussion and shone with his clarity.
I find Peter more reglective of real-world implications whereas Alex tends to float off into pure anstraction. That requires Peter to maintain more caveats simultaneously in order to avoid running away from reality.
Paragraph separations are your friend.
Alex, I walked away from Evangelical Christianity many years ago.
Went through quite a journey before walking back to faith through a much different and humble lens.
I love how much your videos challenge me to have good reasons for my faith; and to spend time in the depth of my doubt.
You have an amazing ability to make people who make it their vocation to think deeply about tough questions re-evaluate their previous reasoning, regardless of their age, creed or confidence.
You have a profound respect for deep thinkers and it shows.
What convinced you your faith was real again?
Give us your best 2 reasons for your faith
@@malirk Well, I found no other method or blueprint for being the best man I could be. Billy Graham has been quoted as saying, “When I die and stand before God, I want him to say, ‘We’ll done my good and faithful servant’”
Being open to the Bible having errors was a big one and reading it in the order it was written i.e. The Song of Deborah, Amos, Isaiah (first part), Deuteronomy; and as I saw how the text seemed to evolve over the time it was written, I felt more comfortable in my doubt and more convinced I was on the right path.
@@jimmycoulson4534 I appreciate your reply but it seems like you value who you are as a human (a man) more than truth in your religion.
Do you believe Jesus died on the cross?
Do you believe Jesus was/is part of the trinity?
The Bible does give a lot of moral advice for how we should treat others but the key part of the Bible is the prophecy of Jesus and his sacrifice.
With that said, if you're happy and living your life treating others well, continue to do so. My only question is how skepticism could lead you back in to religion and the path you took.
@@malirk I believe both of these things but those two were not my strongest critiques of the faith nor why I lost it in the first place.
The reason for my journey away from the faith was threefold, the nature of the evangelical church, the character of God, and the silence response to prayers. It is difficult to believe in a God that doesn’t respond.
The Trinity and the propitiation of Christ are indeed foundational but if I do believe that supernatural things can and do exist, then God existing in a Trinity and Christ dying for my sins is not a sticking point for me.
This is a much longer conversation than can be had in the comments section of a UA-cam video but if you DM me, I may answer.
I got so much from this conversation as I do from all of your conversations. Thank you, Alex.
Alex your unbiased way of having conversations is why I listen. Keep it up with objective facts and no matter how views or opinions go, this podcast will be a masterpiece of a journey when looked back on in the future.
*non biased
@@LuxeFilmography
** unbiased
or
** non-biased
@@jcfal1708 yes
There are a few comments here, but i think the correct wording is "acknowledged bias". Alex seems to be open about bias, which is great.
You are two of my favorite UA-camrs!
Two completely different people with very different idealogies.
Never thought we would have this collaboration. This is going to be great.
Alex is so clear and precise with his language; it is a pleasure to listen to him speak.
Alex is Joe Rogan with a philosophy degree:
Reads Peter Singer: Here is my new take on animal rights
Talks to William lane Craig: Here's my new take on Kalam.
Interviews Bishop Baron: Here's my new view on God as a dictator.
He's a good interviewer tough.
@@bdnnijs192
I think you'd have to make a stronger argument to say Alex is simply flapping in the wind of whatever his latest read is. He can skillfully articulate multiple views on his beliefs and isn't of one track or mind.
What you have shown is he is intellectually curious and open minded. But question Alex's, _Alex's,_ integrity as a free thinker is baffling to me.
@@pseudonymousbeing987
A lot of people seem to mistake eloquence for intelligence or expertise. Double so for an englis accent.
If Alex skillfully understands his own views he might not change his mind so often.
p.s. I don't question his integrity. I question his competence beyond being wellspoken. I think he's a little too closeminded for anything that isn't strictly philosophy. We've seen how this worked for veganism.
@@bdnnijs192
Closeminded against things that aren't philosophy? I'm frankly baffled by what you mean. Honestly, no clue.
Everything relates to philosophy.
I haven't seen Alex flip flop, which is what would actually substantiate your argument. He's changed his mind but at a completely reasonable pace. He's actually very young and we've witnessed the very very beginning of his intellectual journey these last few years. He was encountering some of these ideas for the very first time, by their nature new things mean big sways.
@@pseudonymousbeing987
I compared Alex O"Connor to Joe Rogan. From this you draw conclusions about intelligence, openmindedness, integrity, etc.
Apparently often changing his mind makes Joe Rogan insincere, closeminded and overall kinda dumb. Changing his mind frequently (with an English accent) makes Alex O'Connor sincere, open minded and kinda smart.
"He's actually very young"
He's old enough to give lectures on various topics. One might argue he is far older than Joe Rogan in that regard.
p.s.
Everything relates to philosophy. We've seen how tis played out for Alex' purely philosophy based veganism.
tip: When you water down philosophy to encompass 'everything' it loses any specific meaning. Philosophers are not specially qualified to understand 'everything'. Philosophers ar eno more qualified to do science than scientists are qualified to do philosopnhy (because ultimately everything relates to science). Heck, Scientists might not even be qualified to perform science outside of their own respective fields.
That was facinating. I would love to see more of you two talking together. Thanks so much to both of you.
Great conversation. So much good Boghossian content
Alex, I love these interviews you do on Within Reason. Being quite deficient in philosophical studies, half the time I have no idea what you're talking about and have to relisten a few times to drink it in. And you're so young to be so smart! (The conversation between you and Stephen just about did me in.) Keep up the good work.
I have been watching both of you for almost 10 years, and it was extremely fascinating and exciting to hear this conversation between you. Thanks for the content and hope to see you talk to each other again!!
And it's a stark contrast how much Alex has grown both as a philosopher and as a person, compared to Peter who still idolizes Dawkins and stuck with the juvenile, edgy atheist aproach that Alex has left behind. This was put on display in the last part of the video.
@@viktordoe1636 nah
One of the best interviews ever. Thank you
Excellent interview by Dr Boghossian at the end there. Thanks for letting us get to know this Alex fellow and his agnosticism
This was such a fascinating and challenging episode to watch. First time in a while I paused and took it in a bit at times. Socratic method, God, memory, language oooo buddy. Lovely bit of philosophy happy customer thanks :)))
It's both calming and exciting (in all its definitions) to witness this kind of clear, intelligent, respectful exploration and exchange.
Thankyou again. This really was a treat Iove Peters discussions however this was special as it covered less usual topics.
Omg again!!! You always talk to the people I find most interesting !!!!
I’ve read two of Peters books. And I’m a long time subscriber to CS. How to have impossible conversations was great. That being said it was so frustrating to hear him talk to Alex. Like Alex would essentially execute SE perfectly and Peter would give a word salad response or change the topic. Kind of disorienting to listen to. If I hadn’t read his books I would think perhaps Peter exists within his own linguistic community.
I am actually shocked to see this point not being all over the comment section. It was intolerable to listen to and by far the worst impression I´ve seen a guest leave on the podcast.
There was one point where he said that he that the question of god was scientific, and that thinking about it in philosophical terms was damaging. Not 15 minutes later he was making philosophical arguments against god. I felt he wasn’t very consistent about his views through the podcast. I also felt that he was willfully not getting at what Alex was actually saying in a lot of cases. For someone with so much experience in street epistemology it seems crazy how often he misunderstood Alex
What made you write "SE" rather than the entire thing?
@@Thee.Absurdist laziness?
me too thank you Jakob I thought I was going mad @@jakobspeck1736
Excited to see Peter’s views fleshed out thoroughly through your measured interviewing Alex - loving the shift you are making. Glad for what you did and happy for what’s to come.
Could you clarify a bit what you mean by "shift"? I've only been following this channel for a couple months so this comment intrigued me.
@@allrequiredfields He was more of a stronger atheist in the past.
@@allrequiredfields I’ve enjoy the years of well thought out skeptic reaction videos - but I really appreciate the wit and wonder Alex brings to interviews and discussions. To me it seems Alex has learned how to facilitate a level of introspection from his guests and I’m a big fan of exploratory dialogue. So I think he is really embracing a huge skill set.
@@berkaninal1024 He has honed his ability to engage in counterfactuals and steelman views that he doesn't hold. That's just rigorous thinking. As seen around 1:35:00. I wouldn't call that a shift.
Edit: Alex says 45% chance of theism around 1:40:00 and calls this a shift. Calls it a vague agnosticism.
Imagine thinking he'll eventually embrace your nonsense religion 😂😂😂
Great work lads. Both of you. 😊
Really enjoyed that. Thanks Alex!
I love Peter. This was a great interview. It's great to hear him delve into epistemology even deeper.
Thank you for the better understanding.
you kidding me? he waffled nonsense
@@DoubleDowner What exactly was nonsense about what he talked about?
😂😂😂
I think flabbergasted is the best word to describe Peter’s face when Alex said 45%🤣
I think we will see a "conversion reveal" of Alex soon when I look at some of the last videos 😂.
@@MrSeedi76I pray you’re right, Christ died for your sins, was buried and rose again the third day, believe in him and you shall be saved
@@MrSeedi76
Nah, Alex cares too much about verifiable evidence.
For him to convert something really terrible would have to happen and destroy his entire life so he would convert entirely for emotional reasons and simply ignore that there isn’t any actual evidence.
@@MrSeedi76 0 chance. He's open to deism like the majority of atheist. But Yeshua is nothing but a dead Jew.
@@ramigilneas9274what evidence are you talking about? I'm not American so I don't understand these strange debates. Evidence for miracles? There can be none. Neither for the resurrection.
But you can look into mysticism, become a monk and pray in a cave for 20 years. You might experienced God that way. The gospels can never be evidence for anything. They are documents of faith.
What evidence do you need that the world would be a better place when people followed the sermon on the mount or loved their neighbor and prayed for their enemies instead of bashing their heads in? Seems self evident to me. The rest is faith or rather trust in God as the word "pistis" can mean both.
This was brill Alex. Thanks.
Great conversation.
You will always be the cosmic skeptic to me.
Great episode
It just dropped...
3 minutes in? Do we have a time traveller on our hands?
i think it was one of the worst.
Jesus what an amazing conversation.
Well done ....great to see these discussions continuing being carried on in a world becoming a bit of a restricted academia.
I love how much Pete obviously listens to what people say & reacts to that.
He's not just throwing an opposing view, he's very specific in his responses.
That paint brush talk felt like an infinite digression 😂
That ending section with Alex was an excellent take.
I feel like Peter never actually answered Alex's question about bias in answering questions fully
he didn't answer any of the questions satisfactorily. The argument about language as proof of pre-existence for example, makes 0 logical sense. And the argument for how god won't care about sex is so ridiculous and he kept moving goalposts when alex challenged him even slightly
It was painful to watch. Alex nailed it, how could a mere question move somebody from disagree to agree? they must be more than questions. And at 29:45, after beating around the bush for so long, Peter finally admitted, yes, you represent the bias of the opposite position, so you can get them talking and thinking.
I've heard a flat earther literal say at the point of exasperation that "It doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I'm fighting for the right to have my opinion." I learned in that moment that for them it's not about the science or rationality, it's about ego, attention, and most of all, clicks. Turns out there's an audience for conspiracies, who knew. What would it take to change their mind?....doubling their subs. See Dave Rubin for more info.
Just needed to comment to let you know your comment rings so true to me. I think also of the Hodge Twins.
I heard someone say something really similar in regards trans women playing sports in women’s leagues.
In the current culture war "It doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I'm fighting for the right to have my opinion." it does seem to also mirror in a way with the current woke movement beliefs. Where lived experience trumps all things. I'd never really thought about the similarities between flat earthers and the woke before, but now it seems obvious.
@@flain283 Interesting...please define "woke movement beliefs" in your words.
@@spectreskeptic3493 I kind of did already, did you miss it? Lived experience, overrides facts and is considered more important in their beliefs.
Id say the woke movement would be represented in these books:
How To Be An Antiracist: Ibram X. Kendi
Critical Race Theory: Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic
Words That Wound: Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw
White Fragility: Robin DiAngelo
Traditional And Critical Theory: Max Horkheimer
From the conversation it seems you are more philosophically informed and less dogmatic than your guest. Your push back was spot on and he didn't seem prepared to give reasons for some of the more extreme claims he made - which is a bit ironic if street epistemology is his main line of work
Thanks Alex, big Boghossian fan here.
Nice. Good job, Alex.
Showed himself to be a far better philosopher than the other guy. Seriously can't believe he was a professor of philosophy, what a lightweight, uninteresting thinker.
Fascinating conversation Alex and Peter ! Alex is beautiful how as an atheist/agnostic you manage to defend the idea of a God better than most believers.
Yeah, it's a bit like a right-winger pretending they're a centrist - a lot of grifters do it.
Yes...uses his guests epistemology on him....very clever. He is a clever lad.
@@Crashawsomeyou reckon Alex ain’t being legit?
@@InfinityProTeam Nope. I think something happened a few months back. Maybe he's got HIV or cancer, I've really got no idea
@@Crashawsome what makes you think that?
There's a part I found really interesting that borghossain said about the circumstances someone changes their beliefs.
He says it comes from a place of safety which in many cases I agree with.
But I also think fear can be a motivator for this too. Because it can jolt you into analysing a previous position you were blasé about and now understand the consequences are far more serious.
Sure, but you had to first be blase. The point is that a person isn't open to changing their beliefs unless they feel they're beliefs aren't threatened (especially deeply held beliefs).
@@JM-us3fr I don't agree with that if someone strives for objectivity. What you are describing is the opposite of even attempting to be objective because their emotions need to be satisfied prior.
Now how many people truly attempt to be objective is a different question.
@@lennoxwasbest7587 I suppose that’s true, but my statement was more referring to the average person, not a blanket statement.
That didn't end the way I expected. I'm glad I stuck it out to the end.
This is amazing. I'm obsessed.
Sometimes it felt like this dude was making up the answers as he goes lol still a great interview though. This has quickly become one of my favorite YT channels
It sounds like Peter's stance is that for something to be a language it has to be shared with others capable of understanding language. I could imagine a world in which an individual has never seem another person, develops an internal language model, invents an imaginary friend (or even an imaginary self) and this person enacting a conversation between the two.
You’re assuming you can even have an idea of “other” without any actual others. I don’t think that is true.
@@itstandstoreason humans have always been capable of making up things that aren't real. There you have mr. Experiment all alone looking at all those animals around him. All with multiple of them. Why wouldn't mr. Experiment think at some point: why is there only one of me and not multiple?
@@jeffrooow I find it extremely unplausible that language, something which took millenia to slowly emerge, would ever be developed by a solitary being with no previous social behaviour.
@@Leiska86 it wouldn't be full and complex like modern day language is. That is not what I'm saying this imaginary person would do. Just specific grunts referring to specific objects would be enough if the grunt remains consistent with the object. Your reaction would be similar to saying no one could develop maths because differential equations are too complicated. I'm saying adding and subtracting is already proof of concept. Nothing advanced. Just the basics.
That whole thing felt silly because language wasn't defined.
Hey man just popping in to say I like the new outro. It's much nicer this way rather than the sort of "gotcha" you had before.
Two of my favorite thinkers.
During the Street Epistomology section I kept having questions about how the interviewer would need to have an incredible amount of self awareness to stay as indifferent to the outcome of the conversation as Alex and Peter were saying would be a fundamental factor to the success of the conversation. To really appreciate how complex and difficult it would be to achieve this sort of neutrality requires an appreciation for how biases and unconscious motivations easily creep into a conversation like this. The goal of neutrality may be a good one in order to create respect and safety and decrease manipulation but it is extremely illusive without deep insight and a wary observing ego.
It might be more realistic for the interviewer to work at being more transparent themselves about their positions and biases throughout the conversation rather than trying to stifle them, which I suspect is nigh impossible. Therapists used to be coached to be neutral but that is an approach that has mostly been abandoned and replaced by more of a transparent, authentic approach. A conversation like this could be enhanced by having a clinical psychologist weigh in on how one might best understand the way to increase the effectiveness of a conversation like what is supposed to happen in Street Epistomological encounters.
Point is, therapist is different from street epistemologist. A bit deep. Epistemologist is looking to address your meta reasoning then address the reasoning itself. A therapist isn't interested in meta reasoning, only the reasoning itself. How is that different?
A therapist isn't here to make you find the way yourself; he's here to lead you. Lead you. It is usually unhumiliating as those ideas aren't core of you, like not what you believe about the earth, but relatively superficial like how do you look at yourself and why do you do the things you do. Him being upfront with some, if not most positions, isn't an issue as he isn't interested in making you figure out the way but to lead you, more likely he's trained to let you find your goal but the methods are most likely like other humans (you're unlikely to be different in how you can change your childhood traits. Even if your goal don't align with most people, the steps are gonna be very meta, unspecific, but very systematic nonetheless).
A street epistemologist isn't interested in letting you find the goal, not even the methodology to reach those goals, cuz definitionally we all have different methodologies for all sorts of beliefs. And even if we concede the methodology point, an SE isn't supposed to tell you how to think. I can't stress this out: *he isn't supposed to lead you to the truth, as important as that is.* His job is to question your beliefs; to lead you the other way you have been going for a while. The therapist's counterpart would be to ask you to try a new method no one ever used it before and see what happens. As therapist is trained that humans' natures are very similar, trying a new methodology or a meta way of reaching a goal, is unlikely to be effective, tho still possible. Why? In therapy, there are effective and effective ways to changing your life. In SE, spoon-feeding one with the best methodology for that kind of beliefs defeats the very purpose of critical thinking itself! If SE were instead a math teacher, or a communication expert, then yes thinking for one's self is of second importance, hence telling you the best way is almost oart of their job. SE's job is in the first place make you find the best thinking methodology yourself as you would encounter other beliefs that don't (ontologically) have the same methodology as the best approach of dealing with them. Hence divulging your beliefs, let alone methodologies, is literally analogous to giving a math exam student the formula itself when the whole point of the course is critical thinking and finding the formula was the half that's in the student to (not memorize, but) figure out!
Unfortunately, Peter seems to be getting less and less neutral as an interlocutor in his SE. One stark example is the one in England recently with Billboard Chris and Nathan of Digital Gnosis. He allows one of them to keep interrupting the other, and keeps pointing the mic at the interrupter. Peter is an advocate of the interrupter's position. That's fine. But it was obvious that he was preferring Chris. Later he went on Digital Gnosis's channel and weakly defended his performance. Denied it showed bias. It was disappointing.
@@VesnaVK Plus the whole premise of "questions, not arguments" like he's asking neutral socratic questions so participants can eventually find truth by themselves is utter BS. Admitted by himself at 29:45
The entire discussion about pre-existing linguistic community was fascinating. I hope you get to do full videos about linguistics and philosophy of language in the future.
There was an interesting hypothesis - but then it went off track in a stupid direction, then stoped
Out of curiosity, how did you watch and comment here a day before the release?
@@AurorXZ’m assuming patreon or similar, or they know them IRL, and they got early access
@@AurorXZpatreon early access!
@@jonathanbangayan3994 Cool!
This was the best Within Reason so far, IMHO :)
The last ten minutes were the best part. Please talk more about your changing views of religion, I find them very interesting and relevant to my own views.
The linguistic field of pragmatics, and Speech Act Theory in particular, deals with the issue discussed at the beginning of the conversation. An utterance that is grammatically constructed as a question could actually be intended (and perceived) as a command, e.g. "Are you going to be quiet?" or even a threat in the correct context, e.g. a gangster asks a rival gangster "How is your family these days?".
Every time I hear Boghossian's talks he always falls short in the ability of questioning his beliefs. I understand this is very common to pretty much all human beings, but if you craft your figure around street epistemology I think you need to be a bit better than this.
I was thinking the same thing throughout the interview
Yes it's a totally bizarre and sort of epistemically morbid thing to see. His implicit conception of evidence alone such that there is *no* evidence for theism, for example, is wild. (Does he think there's literally nothing about the world or abstract truths or anything that seems more likely or better explained or better grounded on theism rather than non-theism?)
He had very strange body language throughout with an odd twitch in his left shoulder. He did not seem relaxed and his attempt at the beginning to suggest he had better communication and relationships with people because of his direct speech seemed like a power play and made me uncomfortable. Alex handled it well.
@@davidlamb7524 Unfortunately once you've branded yourself as the conversation master I don't think there's a way out of being odd in that context. It's like telling someone you're the Impossible Sex Master before going to bed with them. You might be fine, but now you're not. You're welcome in advance for this important analogy.
@@philoshua Good analogy.
I love your interviews Alex. I think you were quite excited in this one as you overtalked Peter fairly often. I love your enthusiasm.
I felt like he only overtalked him once Peter hade made a habit of cutting Alex of every second time he tried to make a point. With guests engaging in a more respectful conversational style I do not see Alex overtalking ever.
Great video !
Alex can you do a response to plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism
I think you should talk to David Deutsche. He would have an interesting conversation about epistemology with you.
1:46:00 and afterwards has SO much to unpack and David Deutsche I think would be the perfect conversation partner for that.
Great guest, love street epistemology its one of the best tools to get into what and why people believe.
Came from my daily commute after hearing this to say that this was golden!
I would love an in depth argument about this pre existence of language idea!
Alex telling Peter he used to think like him when he was 16 or 17 years old 😅
Oh wow, never would have thought Boghossian would be on your channel. I’ve been a subscriber for a while, and I like your content. I actually had Boghossian as one of my philosophy professors when I was at PSU. From what I remember, he either got fired or he left for some controversial reasons
He was a controversial figure who enjoyed discussing contentious topics during his classes, including flat-earthers, climate change, the Occupy Wall Street movement and many more. Eventually, he resigned, and his resignation letter contains the following quote explaining his decision: "[B]rick by brick, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division,"
probably because he's a rightwing grifter.
@@bengreen171Hi bot / vanilla paste brain 😊
Either or, that's all bases covered.
@@anatolydyatlov963 If Peter wants a conversation on climate change, I'd love to have one. He seems more interested in hot button topics these days that get views. He wants to talk about woke and transgender, social justice. He doesn't want to talk about Christianity and climate change much anymore it seems.
I imagine his core ideas for the "anti-woke" wouldn't be so interested on him ripping into Christianity.
If he is with the science on climate change, they probably wouldn't be for him showing evidence for climate change.
@@anatolydyatlov963 ive yet to see how his assertions in the quote you mentioned have been justified, let alone substantiated.
Practicing duality is exhilarating and exhausting, requiring recovery and refreshments ❤
Fantastic discussion. I agree with others that praise Alex’s ability to keep all the threads separate and untangled. Appreciate that Peter was good at it as well. Philosophy is so different now than when I was at university. This kind of discussion would have taken place between a couple of people, say a professor and student, and gone no further. Trading ideas in papers is still important, but glacial. Ideas can now percolate in a single discussion and travel around the globe in hours or days. I’m excited to see how this can move us forward as a species. If only we can separate these signals from the noise of the Ben Shapiro’s and Jordan Peterson’s.
1) There are ways of thinking that are not reliant on linguistic capability. An example is mental rotation.
2) New generations create new grammars often. Many aren't grammars made out of whole cloth -- they're creoles -- but some are. E.g., many sign languages.
Your comment about Konstantin Kisin and free speech struck me.
I found Triggernometry in the latter half of 2020 and found it very refreshing to see open dialogue on contentious topics. Over time however, I found the content to be subtly agenda driven, repetitive, unnuanced, and dogmatic (in the comment section), ultimately confirmed when they revealed Epoch times sponsored a few of their videos. I ended up unsubscribing to them, given the monolithic nature of discussion they were seemingly converging to, despite agreeing with their stances on wokeness and appreciation of some of their guest speakers.
This happened again, with James Lindsay. I found his readings of Hegel, Marcuse, and Gramsci etc. to be incredibly in depth and informative. Sitting down and actually reading the literature, simplifying the jargon, and dissecting the arguments is incredibly helpful. However, he seems to be converging in a similar direction, to some attractor or fixed point, without regard to nuance, rigor, and intellectual curiosity required to resolve divergent opinions.
It goes without saying, Jordan Peterson has completely succumbed to the incentive structures of this new media environment, ultimately taking employment with the Daily Wire, becoming another right-wing mouth piece.
There seems to be a pattern of group fragmentation that results from podcast popularity; heterodox thinkers are cashing in on generating polarizing content, without regard to maintaining rigorous intellectual standards and intellectual openness (or so it seems to me). We have to remain free critical thinkers, not just simply join the other side, in all but name.
I've not seen this with any of CosmicSkeptics content, so I applaud that. Being able to represent the opposition, maintaining rigor, and consistently being intellectually courageous is exactly what I want to see.
It's maybe not 100% related to what you're saying, but I'm reminded of right-leaning organizations like The Daily Wire who thinks the solution to LGBT media aimed at kids is ...... right-winged entertainment aimed at kids. NEITHER group should be indoctrinating kids, period.
@@blossom357 LGBT media aimed at kids doesn't really need a solution. Having a gay character in a kids book and the book explaining that it's ok isn't something to worry about.
@@bob3ironfist Nah, it's a total red flag. Compare something like The Wire or Six Feet Under, two shows from the early 2000s that have same sex relationships and there's no big deal made about them. It's just a relationship. Compare to today, where the same kind of relationship would be LOOK! WE'RE GAY! WE'RE GAY! WE'RE GAY!
If you're going to have a gay character in a children's book, I'm fine with that. But don't use that as an opportunity to preach.
@@blossom357 There's no gay propaganda in children's books. This is not a problem.
Such a good comment, I’m currently writing an essay on how the attention economy of digital platforms causes political polarisation. This comment helped me think about it in another way.
such an interesting guest alex
Having followed you gents both for a long time, I do agree with Alex on the matter of language substance and creation being possible within a vacuum requiring no other entities with which to communicate, if even purely as a means of internal organization.
But this is only possible as a pure hypothetical that requires us to ignore how human cognitive development looks like in practice.
@@stranger2Utube When first discovering a recipe, much is already understood how certain ingredients might interact, yes? Prior to that, is it not further uncertainty in regression of knowledge? It seems a language could come about in similar circumstances absent the wealth of knowledge we take for granted, especially in world building literature, imho.
@@ryvyr This is all absolutely valid from philosophical perspective and I'm not even starting to discuss it.
But it ignores the reality of us being biological organisms that develop in a specific way, outlines of which are pretty well know and understood within developmental psychology. I can't find any way in which you could reconcile these theoretical considerations with what we know about how language and theory of mind are acquired in practice.
@@stranger2Utube It reminds of a class years ago where I kept referencing an engineer who understood the mechanics of a thermostat vs purely philosophical syllogisms in a vacuum. Indeed what is by best understood ostensible seems to weigh more than speculation, regardless if shades of plausible in different circumstances. I suppose it was still worth the mention for what seems reasonable in some circumstances, lacking omnitemporal perception, separate from other circumstances of increased academic attention.
@@ryvyr Of course it was worth mentioning. It was a pleasure.
I love this! huge fan of peter and alex!
7:58 “That’s very British.”
Well, it _might_ be “very British” but, having grown up in the US all my life, I’d say that people pose questions as a way of rejecting options here in the US, too.
1:20:21 “That was a very British thing right there.”
I dunno-for a philosopher, Peter Boghossian seems to have a lot of assumptions of what constitutes “Britishness.” And it’s even weirder because Alex didn’t _not_ reach down and get the water-he was just sitting there with an empty glass-maybe it didn’t even occur to him to _get_ more water. The whole thing was prompted by Boghossian. It seems very strange to me-and, again, I’ve lived my whole life in the US.
Nope. Every American speaks exactly the same way, down to euphemisms and idioms. When we want water, we say "Get me water!". Phrasing it as a question would be VERY British.
@@jamesdavis3851 Ha, oops, forgot. Thanks for setting me straight. 👍
Fantatsic conversation! Alex, as well as being an inspirational deep thinker, you are a very talented interviewer too. I really apreciate your work. It was really good to hear Peter talking more deeply and on a wider range of interesting philisophical topics and ideas than the usual woke realm that most interviewers make him stick too. Peter, I love your street epistomology series, and your masterful use of the socratic method, as well as, the very important work you do in exposing the woke parasitic mind virus and helping people understand it, but I would love to hear more of you discussing other philophical areas as you did in this conversation. You have so much to offer. To both of you, please keep up the sterling work. However, I would say that Alex is more a quintessential English gentleman, rather than "extremely British".
Language has two purposes. Communication and thinking. I play bridge and I have concepts in my head that help me play better that I have named, independently of communicating those ideas to other people. Very specific patterns I’ll recognise faster because I’ve named them, and deal with better because I’ve associated actions with them.
I did the same intuitively as a child while playing with legos. I named the different blocks which made it easier to plan out my builds in my head. Later I shared these names with my friends and they started to use them as well, which was quite cool to see. It was like I invented a new language haha
I hold as one of the best conversations I have heard you present on your channel. I like the wide range of topics that was covered and appreciate the pushback on the "pre-existing linguistic community" argument that Bogosian presented because I was highly skeptical (still processing the information).
Yeah I can agree with Alex's phrasing (one cannot question that they are using language, because to do so would use language), but not so much Boghossian's. I'll have to think about it more.
Enjoyed the interview. Would have been better if the guest wouldnt change the subject every time Alex makes a clear point.
It's because the guest isn't highly able to reason clearly and not able to follow clear reasoning which is what is required when your talking to Alex as he spots logical weaknesses often. It seems like the guest is more of a professional troller. Nevertheless i found it a good balanced interview on Alex's side.
SHARED
Regarding our conversation of euphemisms, and politeness like “I might just pop in to the shop” and Peter saying that he always just tells the truth to his acquaintances; I wonder if this would entail frank remarks like women’s beauty.
@34:30 Peter should’ve answered that you can’t really know if the person answered correctly/honestly what reason they have for their belief. Instead he said he has years of experience and can tell by body language/context clues, etc. this was an opportunity to demonstrate that humility that he brought up earlier when saying that it’s good for people to say when they don’t know things. Sure, you can sometimes tell and maybe you often can but I think he missed the opportunity to follow his own standard in some sense
May I suggest that you, and others who question Peter's skill at SE, watch some of his videos where he actually engages with real people in public. It is masterful to see him never let on what he thinks about the topic while really trying to understand what people say they believe. He is amazingly respectful, and probably helpful to many people who have no idea why they "believe" what they say they do.
@@DagnyTaggart-jc4wf sure, is there a specific example you can think of which shows what you mean?
@@DagnyTaggart-jc4wf hey Peter
Before we address the question "How confident are you that God doesn't exist?", we need to start by asking something like "How certain are you that you know what God is?". You can't really say much about the existence [or non-existence] of something unless you know what it is. I see too often somebody will present their opinion on a subject and initially I'll disagree, but then after they explain their understanding of the subject, I realize that we have different understandings and from their point-of-view I agree with their opinion.
I agree its important to make sure you both are using words in the same sense, so I think a more precise question is just "What do you mean by God?" rather than "How certain are you that you know what God is?". The latter kinda implies that you have the correct definition and if theirs differs then that means their definition is "wrong" .
@@tobiasyoder Yes I agree with that
There R vastly different definitions of God and gods: also very ignorant assumptions about God and gods.
This has been a fascinating conversation and i'm very happy that i took the time to listen to it, i wish i would have more friends or people to discuss things in these manners (mainly, not looking to win an argument, crush an opponent or push an agenda).
One point that i would like to make: The brain in a jar thing is, in my opinion, a bad example to use as basis for validation of an idea. We have NO way of knowing what a brain-in-a-jar would experience in its state, because that thing does not exist on the current world (that i know of). Yes, It is an interesting thought exercise, like for example ancient greeks debating the existence of particle physics. But as they would have no chances whatsoever to produce any kind of empirical evidence or data, it would only serve the purpose of exercising your mind in this theoretical scenario, not claiming a point (pre-existing language community).
A more valid example in my opinion would be: If a person is raised on an isolated place, without direct contact of human beings, which are the primary target for language (i.e, food and survival means are provided remotely or indirectly), would this human develop one? I suspect that this has been done in some point of human history and would have loved that take on the conversation for the language discussion.
Alex, please read about the Myth of the Given - From Wilfried Sellars but you can search Ray's brassier paper on it. There were some things missing on the impossibility of the internal private language that Sellars cogently adds;
This is way better than reaction videos to Jordan Peterson or thiests. I’m glad at least one one of the UA-cam atheists has explored more complex and deeper ideas.
I sing the very same praises.
Some people seem ever lodged in an era of UA-cam that has long died in the critical spaces and has become the domain of cheap entertainment.
Alex, you estimate a 45% confidence that theism is true.
This means that your confidence that christianity is true, plus your confidence that another mutually exclusive theism is true, must be 45%.
What then is the breakdown of your confidence in A) christianity, B) islam, C) judaism, and D) other theism?
I doubt he knows how to quantify it.
1:24:37 I love that statement. In a lot of Alex's previous discussions that had physics tangents, or ancient philosophers talking about physics in general, I was thinking that they really just don't know what they're talking about, which would be expected since they studied philosophy and not physics.
A simple answer to the argument just before that, which said that you would need to have to exhaust an infinite number of events to arrive at the present, if the past really was infinite, would be that "causation" doesn't exactly exist in this sense, but instead, you could simply see the state of our world as a function of time, where the contents of said function simply follow specific implication rules that we as its inhabitants describe as causation. With that, we can simply define an arbitrary 0 time, and plug in positive or negative values into the function to get as far into the future or past as we like.
I honestly don't understand physics enough myself to be able to explain this next part in detail, but the theory of general relativity actually makes a lot more sense if you look at the world just like that, i.e. with time just being another parameter just like the three spatial dimensions, which fits my earlier description.
But the thing is that I absolutely don't believe that I was able to make this point when Alex couldn't just because I was somehow smarter than him - in this discussion alone, he has shown to be much more quick-witted than I could hope to be, being able to articulate his responses to the "pre-linguistic community" discussion without ever having heard of it before - but instead, my understanding of physics just isn't defined by ideas such as a causal chain, which a physicist probably wouldn't even think of dealing with.
Well according to GR depending on relative motion things don't even exist in the same time frame. Your specific motion in a given instant would put you in the same time frame as some faraway object/subject's distant past or future. I agree with you that it's probably easier to see the universe as a function of time, at least in a Macro setting. The argument "you would need to have to exhaust an infinite number of events to arrive at the present" does not really make sense to me, as in I don't know what it's getting at.
@@huaiguzhu Things can still happen at the same time, it's just that we see them later than when they actually happen because light takes longer to travel. But simultaneity is still relative, just that it doesn't change solely based on distance, but also depending on the speed of your frame of reference. But if you keep a single inertial frame of reference, things can still be defined to have a consistent time scale.
But to explain what the argument was getting at: If the past is infinite, then the present puts an end to that infinity, which can't be because infinity is defined as having no end. I think it's a somewhat interesting wordplay, but since you seem to already know what a number line is, I don't even need to explain how that argument is complete nonsense.
@@kappascopezz5122 What I am trying to convey is there isn't an absolute "now", as in the Newtonian absolute time does not exist, it has nothing to do with perceived visuals (due to speed of light being finite).
Sure if we keep a inertial frame of reference we have a consistent time frame, but as soon as acceleration kicks in it breaks down, and since acceleration is so commonplace in the universe I don't think it's all that relevant to mention "a single inertial frame of reference" in the grand scheme of things.
Here I found an old short clip by Brian Greene: ua-cam.com/video/idsw99SSwKc/v-deo.html
I'm gonna love watching this :3
1:55:07 British: I'm afraid we'd need to spend more time together
American: Hopefully we will do that
how is no one in the comments talking about the fact that Alex says his credence in theism is "maybe like 45%"... that's a very remarkable thing to say for one of THE main poster childs of internet atheism
are you sure you didn't mishear him? Could he have said 4 to 5 %?
I'm kind of flabbergasted too... 45% chance that a theist God as described in the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc faiths exists... I can't begin to fathom what he finds convincing about such idea. It would be nice if he elaborated more on the subject!
@@pierrot-baptistelemee-joli820 It was a bit hard to follow, but I'm pretty sure the 45% was referring to "not the Christian one" and "just the idea that a god exists", kind of like the Spinoza-esque "god" that Einstein believed in.
@@bryani. he was specifically talking about theism. a Spinoza-esque God doesn't fall under theism and Alex obviously knows that.
@@dominiks5068 Dang, then 45% is pretty high. I guess he did mention that he values other non-empirical evidence more than he did in the past. Still seems a bit high imho
Beautiful point by Alex that if we criticise something on the basis of a claim that thing doesn't make or using premises it doesn't itself use to criticise it, we are probably getting it wrong.
This is truly warm and humane. I would say that a neutral observer on either both or no side would leave this conversation with a good hope for mankind, whatever the ultimate truth happens to be.
My sincere respect and gratitude.
I’m genuinely surprised how open to the idea of a god Alex is. I have attempted to find good reasons to justify why a god might be a possible thing that could exist for years and years and haven’t found a single argument that seems to indicate it is even a possibility. I am in no way saying I know it’s impossible, but have no reason to think it is possible. If there is a good argument to suggest a god is a reasonable explanation for existence I would be interested if Alex would maybe have an episode on why that were the case. Unless he is equally agnostic about the existence of any mythical creature?
Why do people assume a kind benevolent being?
I'm indifferent to the existence of God.
Even if it was real, doesn't mean I'm going to be a willing slave.
@@mkhosono1741 Yeah that's true. If there were a god of any kind I don't think it's appropriate to worship anything or anyone regardless of what it does of thinks. However if this thing did exist and was big on threats if it doesn't get it's way I would probably want to know so that I know how to avoid it's abuse. A bit like if I lived in North Korea I would want to know how to avoid punishment if I could.
@@lotsofstuff9645Alex has done a video on this. If God exists it would be irrational not to follow him.
@@thyikmnnnn It would be irrational to not follow (assume you mean worship?) this god? Surely it would depend on its behaviour? It would be a bit like saying if you’re in a country with a dictator you should worship the dictator regardless of what they do. I just don’t agree. Especially in the case of an all knowing god. If I found their behaviour repulsive it’s not like I could fool this god. It would make no sense to do anything other than how I would naturally react to its behaviour.
@@lotsofstuff9645 your ignorance is that an all powerful God that created you has you as a judge of him. ?
Atheists somehow think they R morality superior to God.
That is a totally irrational presupposition of your importance which Satan promised Eve in the Garden of Eden: you can become like God.
LOL ,if you think you can hide yourself from God's judgment: God offers you Eternal life but he isn't going to force you into Heaven if you don't want it.
Gotta say, for a famous philosopher, I’m not terribly impressed with Boghossian’s thinking. He doesn’t seem to have that great a depth of thought or a terribly precise way of forming his thoughts. He seems to stumble around rather, get a little confused, and not really be able to tie his ideas up. Alex seems way sharper and on the point, even with an idea he has literally just heard for the first time.
He is not a serious academic.
The best way that I have found to have people question their own beliefs is to treat it like a court where they are both the defence and the prosecution for their position. Of course they have to do this honestly.
Bravo Alex for your remarks at the end about the limitations of analytic philosophy. I'm struggling with similar thoughts myself. Didn't Wittgenstein say something like nothing worth saying can actually be said? I paraphrase.
I wish Peter could see that, so far, he hasn't made an argument for the possibility of an ontological infinite regress. If he ever tries, he'll find he himself slams into all sorts of problems. But he likes the feeling of it, especially when he strawmans every scientist and philosopher does have reasons for supposing that there is a fundamental nature of reality.
It’s willful blindness to escape the reality of the fact that the universe had a finite beginning in the past.
Well, the problem of an infinite regress is also a very solid argument against the possibility that a personal being is the cause of the universe.
Obviously it is not possible that such a being was always thinking or that it was always making decisions… so something outside of that being must have caused it to have a first thought or to make a first decision.
A lot of things that we would describe as the fundamental nature or reality disproves personal beings as the cause of the universe… for example that it’s not possible to make decisions or to create anything in the absence time.
So making the decision to create time would be impossible.
@@bretttheroux8040
Sure, the current state of our universe probably had a beginning through a rearrangement of preexisting material… but that doesn’t tell us anything about what exists outside of our universe or if the cosmos is eternal.
@@ramigilneas9274 certainly it won’t tell us about what may exist outside of the universe, but what are you referring to when you say ‘cosmos?’ My understanding is the cosmos is the universe itself, and the universe itself had a finite beginning 13.7bn years ago (if our understanding of astrophysics is correct, which obv may not be the case) the moment of the big bang is precisely when all matter and time itself came into being. That’s the only thing we can firmly hold to in terms of physical/scientific evidence. Speculating that there may be infinite universes or an eternal cycle of big bangs and ultimate collapses are pure speculation.
@@ramigilneas9274why is time a requirement to make decisions? there’s no time in space, yet the astronauts make decisions every day, no?
Peter has a very strong disarming quality about him that makes street epistemology possible. It helps that he gives off blue collar vibes and doesn't immediately sound as erudite as he is.
Exactly. People complain about how informal he is while talking, but I believe it helps keep the conversations genuine.
Alex. It would be great to discuss James Lindsay and CRT with Peter.
Why do we assume an auditory language? Written language could have come first and would be useful even if only for notes for oneself.
People born deaf certainly do fine with language too.