Okay. That's kind of interesting.

From all I've digested of Žižek it seems he quite often bathes in exaggeration for theatrics. So, I wouldn't take "pseudo-scientific" as a flat and sincere statement. Also given that Peterson actually IS a scientist (with a few well sited papers).

I tried to watch the talk, but there was so much audience hooting and hollering it was too difficult.

But still, I don't see any evidence of Peterson being a "crypto-fascist" or "intellectual lightweight" as a previous user accused.

The search continues.

I'll concede that Žižek has a flair for theatrics, but I agree with Žižek that Peterson's claims are "pseudo-scientific" because they are fundamentally not truth-claims that are falsifiable. It's simply not science to say the things he's saying. He may wish to use science to fortify his philosophical or sociological claims, but you can't do that without making statements that are fundamentally at odds with the scientific method.

Edit:

live commentary: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/live-commentary-on-th...

a decently even-handed critique of both participants: https://medium.com/discourse/the-hidden-argument-in-the-zize...

an unedited transcipt I found: https://truefalsehoods.com/2019/04/23/transcript-of-zizek-vs...

(First, thank you for continuing this discussion. I feel I have to say that because often they fall apart.)

(edit: oops, this was to comment on the wikipedia article you posted)

So, it seems to me this critique of Peterson's Boogymen of cultural Post-structuralist Neo-Marxists (or something like that) comes down to "He didn't use the right words to describe what he's talking about." as opposed to "What he's describing doesn't exist" or what I seem to smell in the most muddy of critiques "He's a dangerous idiot".

In addition, looking at this article:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-slavoj-z...

The author says:

"He then proceeded to stumble his way through Marxist philosophy with such a shallow assessment as to be laughably incorrect."

But then doesn't back it up with anything. And shallow doesn't mean incorrect.

So it seems to me that his detractors are grasping at straws.

Again, a hearty shrug from me.

Though, looking at the work from Andray Domise, the author of above, like his articles and his TED talk "TEDx Toronto: Colour Coded: race, gender, and representation in video games" He seems very very occupied with group identity.

I see your point about Peterson being inarticulate regarding his knowledge and understanding of Marxism. However I don’t even know what the strongest interpretation of his views even are. It’s hard to steelman when your interlocutor is incomprehensible. It’s even more baffling because Peterson is using his audiences own unfamiliarity with Marxism and Žižek's views which are not even Marxist to have plausible deniability to strawman Žižek’s views, in order to try to call on Žižek to defend views he doesn’t hold and statements Žižek doesn’t make.

That critics gloss over all this by only saying that Peterson is shallow and incorrect is a shame. He’s not even wrong because his argument is not even making normative statements that could be proved or disproved. To say that the critic judging him didn’t do a good job is fair. However it seems like missing the point. If you have a test and get partial credit for showing your work and your answer is wrong and the work you show is wrong, it is hard to see where an instructor could award any points for an attempt. Nor do I see it as a failure of the instructor to not show their work on this when grading. I think Hitchen’s razor works best here.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Edit: punctuation