Recently, I have been reading and listening to some material from Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson, and Sam Harris. While the three have many ideological differences among themselves, I have found a common thread to be self-congratulatory exaltation of "Western culture," an ill-defined term that has no rigorous definition, while propagating notions of "human progress" in different forms—especially in Pinker's case. Harris mixes his own progress narrative, or what I call an anti-theistic "salvation" narrative, with anti-religious views and sweeping generalizations about how humanity would supposedly be so much better off without religion.
What I find especially concerning about the conspicuously ideological bent of these narratives is that Pinker and Peterson try to present their ideas behind a scientific veneer, and although both have a considerable volume of academic work, those specific claims are separate from both psychologists' expertise and not based on any rigorous science. Peterson frequently leans into Jungian psychoanalysis, for example, even though it is now widely considered by academics to be pseudoscientific or at least not up to modern scientific standards (understandably, given how long ago Jung lived), and he has been criticized by some experts and academics for making unfounded and inaccurate claims about more than one subject, such as philosophy (e.g., positing the existence of a conspiracy against "Western culture" from "posmodern neo-Marxists," the latter being an oxymoronic term) and biology (e.g., his now-notorious argument for social hierarchy among humans based on lobsters' biology).
Pinker, on the other hand, has received a fair share of criticism for his arguments about supposed "progress," including from fellow academics. Much like Peterson, his expertise in his field didn't prevent him from giving a heavily ideological view of human affairs rather than an impartial, evidence-based perspective. Getting into each of his inaccurate claims (although he also makes some accurate ones) would require multiple threads, but the synopsis is that, much like a few other high-profile anti-religious figures, Pinker believes in quasi-millenarian human progress that is supposedly rooted in "Enlightenment values" and taps into multiple historically and scientifically dubious notions to that end.
Harris has a PhD in neuroscience but has run thought experiments where torture and a nuclear first strike would supposedly be justified, and he has made many simplistic claims about religious belief in addition to, again, leaning into notions of superiority of "Western culture" to "Eastern culture" (both equally ill-defined terms).
The first question I'm asking myself here is that if these highly prolific academics who claim to champion "reason," "science," "skepticism," etc., are so prone to advancing their own ideology and personal narratives despite evidence to the contrary, are we really "progressing" beyond our human nature that includes irrationality, tribalism, and bias? Peer review within academic and scholarly communities reins in so much of these biases, sure, but such narratives are often published in books that don't have to abide by academic standards or stand the test of peer review. The result is that flimsy and unevidenced arguments could be presented as "rational" and "scientific" to the average person even though they don't withstand rigorous scrutiny, and starkly ideological and tribalistic narratives (e.g., about "Western culture" versus other cultures or religion versus irreligion) are thrown into the mix as if they were objective truths rather than merely another personal opinion.
In your view, how can the average person distinguish between evidenced claims from an expert and unevidenced, personal opinions that some could give weight just because they're espoused in a book by an expert in a given field? When or how can an average person confidently point to some of the (personal rather than academic) work of someone like Steven Pinker, a widely respected psychologist in terms of research, and say that at least some of it is based on ideology and not rigorous, peer-reviewed science or reliable historical knowledge?
Tagging @Augustus, @Rival, and @exchemist because I suspect they might find this subject interesting.
What I find especially concerning about the conspicuously ideological bent of these narratives is that Pinker and Peterson try to present their ideas behind a scientific veneer, and although both have a considerable volume of academic work, those specific claims are separate from both psychologists' expertise and not based on any rigorous science. Peterson frequently leans into Jungian psychoanalysis, for example, even though it is now widely considered by academics to be pseudoscientific or at least not up to modern scientific standards (understandably, given how long ago Jung lived), and he has been criticized by some experts and academics for making unfounded and inaccurate claims about more than one subject, such as philosophy (e.g., positing the existence of a conspiracy against "Western culture" from "posmodern neo-Marxists," the latter being an oxymoronic term) and biology (e.g., his now-notorious argument for social hierarchy among humans based on lobsters' biology).
Pinker, on the other hand, has received a fair share of criticism for his arguments about supposed "progress," including from fellow academics. Much like Peterson, his expertise in his field didn't prevent him from giving a heavily ideological view of human affairs rather than an impartial, evidence-based perspective. Getting into each of his inaccurate claims (although he also makes some accurate ones) would require multiple threads, but the synopsis is that, much like a few other high-profile anti-religious figures, Pinker believes in quasi-millenarian human progress that is supposedly rooted in "Enlightenment values" and taps into multiple historically and scientifically dubious notions to that end.
Harris has a PhD in neuroscience but has run thought experiments where torture and a nuclear first strike would supposedly be justified, and he has made many simplistic claims about religious belief in addition to, again, leaning into notions of superiority of "Western culture" to "Eastern culture" (both equally ill-defined terms).
The first question I'm asking myself here is that if these highly prolific academics who claim to champion "reason," "science," "skepticism," etc., are so prone to advancing their own ideology and personal narratives despite evidence to the contrary, are we really "progressing" beyond our human nature that includes irrationality, tribalism, and bias? Peer review within academic and scholarly communities reins in so much of these biases, sure, but such narratives are often published in books that don't have to abide by academic standards or stand the test of peer review. The result is that flimsy and unevidenced arguments could be presented as "rational" and "scientific" to the average person even though they don't withstand rigorous scrutiny, and starkly ideological and tribalistic narratives (e.g., about "Western culture" versus other cultures or religion versus irreligion) are thrown into the mix as if they were objective truths rather than merely another personal opinion.
In your view, how can the average person distinguish between evidenced claims from an expert and unevidenced, personal opinions that some could give weight just because they're espoused in a book by an expert in a given field? When or how can an average person confidently point to some of the (personal rather than academic) work of someone like Steven Pinker, a widely respected psychologist in terms of research, and say that at least some of it is based on ideology and not rigorous, peer-reviewed science or reliable historical knowledge?
Tagging @Augustus, @Rival, and @exchemist because I suspect they might find this subject interesting.
