I'm confused by your use of "again". This all smacks of pseudoscience, similar to the anti-vaxxers and the hyped claims of chemicals like reseveratrol or bee pollen. Perhaps you're using a focused definition of "pseudoscience"? For me, it's basically any claim dressed up in the trappings of science, but lacking any credible methodology.
Peterson dresses his obsolete cultural and psychological ideas up in the trappings of biological evolution, with no methodology to back them up. So, his claims are pseudoscience. It's difficult for me to impute that you (or any scientifically literate person would) disagree. 8^) Now, you could simply be arguing that evopsych is not pseudoscience, Peterson is pseudoscientific, hence Peterson is not evopsych. That seems reasonable. Or, perhaps you're simply saying that this article, like so many others don't make a clear case for (or against) Peterson's claims as pseudoscientific? On 03/08/2018 09:10 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > Again there's no hint of pseudo-science, he's getting roasted by lawyers in > this telling for simple factual errors. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
