Obviously I’m not a fan of Dawkins. I haven’t read any of his work, but from the various clips and quotes of his I’ve seen over the years he strikes me as an incurious bigot with a blinkered worldview. But I have no reason to doubt that he is a smart man.

So it’s very funny to see him realize that he’s debating a genuinely delusional person, as Peterson makes some bizarre epistemological argument that dragons are literally real because we use the concept of predator as a shorthand for animals that kill other animals. Except Peterson seems to expand the definition of predator to “anything that can kill a person” when he argues that fire is a predator.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hotcouchguy@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

When people occasionally argue that peasants didn't understand literal vs metaphorical, I've always found that hard to believe, but maybe Peterson is actually like that.