I don't claim to have read _everything_ he has written, but claiming that he doesn't base his arguments in a rational, scientific grounding is a real stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I don't claim to have read _everything_ he has written, but claiming that he doesn't base his arguments in a rational, scientific grounding is a real stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst.
My point is that "whether someone bases their arguments on rational, scientific grounding" cannot be determined by looking at their qualifications or their employment, especially when they are speaking outside of their field. Jordan Peterson's most famous claims - firstly about a conspiracy of Postmodern Marxism (which is a non-sequitur to anyone who has even a basic understanding of postmodernism or marxism) and the claims underlying his rise to internet fame - fearmongering about C-16 bill including being extremely misleading about the specifics of it - are absolutely not based on "rational, scientific grounding", and his CV doesn't change this.
Albert Einstein called the intuitive or metaphoric mind a sacred gift. He added that the rational mind was a faithful servant. It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/
BTW: Are you trying to associate Professor Peterson's work with the Seth Material?
My point was: that the terms "rational & scientifically grounded" are features best ascertained by examination of an argument itself, not as traits that become applied to a person as a whole and then inherently imbue each claim that this person then makes from that point onward.
There exist people with almost identical "qualifications and positions" that Jordan B Peterson has who demonstrably make arguments that are not "rational & scientifically grounded", therefore these "qualifications and positions" are at best a poor marker for the properties or qualities we are seeking, and cannot be the quality itself.