

As a counterpoint, consider Peter Duesberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg), a world expert on viruses, who denies that the virus HIV causes AIDS. The reason we can reject this claim is that (unlike his previous work) it's totally unsupported by any evidence, counter to high quality evidence from large numbers of mainstream science.

The way to make a counterpoint is not to bring up someone else and say "this other guy's claim is unsupported by evidence."

Instead, you'd do this by showing how Peterson's claim is unsupported by evidence, specifically on how his view pertains to the current topic.

My counterpoint is apt; it points out that even people who have credentials can be wrong, and it's important to consider that.

Hitton's point is that "you can't reject [Peterson] just because you happen to not like them." If it was instead "because his claims are unsupported by evidence," then I could see how your counterpoint is apt. However, that is not the case.

I was responding to "He is professor of psychology who taught in top universities, his scientific articles have many citations, why wouldn't he be reliable?", not "because his claims are unsupported by evidence".

> who denies that the virus HIV causes AIDS

That's understandable.

He supported an alternative theory.

But he was already 50 years years old when he published his first essay on HIV, and over 60 when he started the campaign against HIV/AIDS correlation.

And most of his theories have been disproved by following studies, his first publication on the subject is date 1987, Montagnier discovered HIV in 1986 and it was taken for granted as a fact years later.

The best moments of Duesberg career had already gone (like 30 years before).

Montagnier himself late in his life, at the age of 77, gave a speech that basically supported the validity of homeopathy.

I bet it's more an aging related problem than a credibility problem.

BTW Duesberg was wrong on HIV but not on the other topics he studied.

I have no reason of doubting your warnings on Peterson, but it may be possible, as in the Duesberg and Montagnier cases that he might be wrong on something and right on something else.
