There’s a relatively famous “debate” that’s been circulating through critical thinking related social media. Jordan Peterson versus a group of young atheists.
As difficult as it is for me to leave my personal bias against Peterson aside I will let you read his Wikipedia page. Like a lot of influential high profile figures he’s controversial. Often this comes off as controversial for the sake of being controversial. The contrarian personality willing to “tell it like it is”. Whether it’s because of actual belief in his words or just for money. Well, that isn’t so important as he, like sports gematria grifters, got caught red handed in using a tried and true fake debate tactic - The motte and bailey fallacy.
This video summarizes exactly what the tactic is as well as use during the aforementioned debate:
https://youtu.be/lrdOamPIRGY?si=T5eT7MmPpjS7jvuV
The real life motte and bailey consists of medieval castle fortification that has a bailey, the fun part of town with all the perks of medieval squalor. The blacksmiths, the shops, the inns, the massage parlors, the EV charging stations, etc…. You don’t want to ruin the fun in the town part of the castle by constantly having troops monitor your every move and deporting random citizens to a dungeon in Mordor. So it’s lightly defended. But when the shit hits the fan and Sauron’s orcs arrive at the walls you’ve got the motte. It’s the opposite side of the coin. It’s not much fun at all. It’s the last resort to stay home and avoid being slaughtered without having to pack up and move to the Shire. Eventually the orcs who aren’t interested in a full blown siege move on. Hopefully because of boiling oil being poured on them. Everyone loves a good castle siege movie with boiling oil. At least every normal person does.
For Peterson it played out like this. Pinned down to give a simple answer to a simple question he self assuredly delivered a simple answer. A confidence born of being knowledgeable by a life of fake debating. Gish galloping his way through using confusion via big words to claim victory that doesn’t real exist. The debate bailey is the controversial high profile argument. “Atheists worship without knowing it.” When challenged he retreats to the debate motte. A well practiced changing of the goal posts, or changing the subject of sorts. The debate motte, whatever form it takes in any debate is an easier argument to defend. And then the bait and switch happens where the motte and the bailey are conflated to claim the controversial bailey argument is proven by the advancement of the simple and intellectually inferior motte.
If you fancy getting into a debate with an irrational and deliberately deceptive person just for fun you don’t need to start off too high profile. You can just find a sports gematria aficionado on YouTube and challenge them. I even posted a video here a little bit ago. Sports gematria is and always has survived on the premise of gematria having predictive qualities. Almost all gematria has at least an undertone of predictive ability. The controversial and fun bailey is the magical ability to make amazing predictions. The motte is how the game has to be finished for you to find the connections with the gematria. The only time predictions seem to work is the many times both teams are predicted to win. The ultimate motte. If you can pick both teams to win and have it count you will achieve a 100% win rate that is intellectually devoid of any true meaning.
Keep it simple. Like the time Hubbard got trapped into debating gematria he was presented with his clear bailey. “Will you make a prediction right now, live on air?” You can embellish it a bit with some of the easier side dishes to the meat. “A genuine, in advance prediction with gematria. No picking both teams as having a supporting narrative. No conditions. No backtracking later with a ‘they flipped the script on me.’ Just a genuine, honest actual prediction of an event with some details instead of predicting something that happens everyday like earthquakes.”
That time Hubbard retreated to the motte in record tike. Like he often does he starts firing off an old collection of greatest hits stories in the past that had nothing to do with making a prediction on the spot. Whether you can correctly predict something RIGHT NOW and your previous track record are different beasts. And the main opposition stuck to his guns and wouldn’t let him slide on retreating to the motte. Alternatively, you can ask him if he genuinely believes making narratives for both teams is legitimately predictive gematria. When pressed he probably will say yes, because it’s his go to disguise for the scam. And part of the reason I like the linked video is Peterson’s use of the same argument. You’re either a Christian or you aren’t. You can’t be “8/12ths Christian”, an actual quote recorded and emphasized in that video.
No comments:
Post a Comment