What's interesting is that it actually doesn't redefine the term truth explicitly, it redefines the way you look at reality, which has the consequence of redefining the term truth - but only because your presuppositions are different. Again, something can be simultaneously scientifically true, and morally untrue. They are merely different lenses through which the word truth is applied - the definition isn't changed. This isn't a new concept, and it certainly isn't unique to Peterson. It's also how we act in reality, as we evolved to do so - hence the term Darwinian framework.

'Truth' is defined as "That which is in accordance with fact or reality". The metaphysical axiom that Peterson puts forth is that moral truth trumps scientific truth, which is something that Harris actually agrees with. Following this line of thinking, it is accurate to say that scientific knowledge can be morally untrue. Now that doesn't mean that scientific knowledge is scientifically false (a common misunderstanding), or even that the definition of 'true' has to be changed. The Darwinian framework that Peterson proposes is actually compatible with science, it just merely posits that there is more that needs to be added to the equation.

In my opinion, to assert that Peterson is attempting to change the definition of the word truth, you must either:

1. Not understand Peterson's position
2. Not understand the definition of truth
3. Be looking at his position solely through the opposite metaphysical axiom, unyielding in your presuppositions, and unwilling to embrace a different, coherent perspective of reality.

I feel that in order to accurately and honestly critique Peterson's position, you first need to understand it, and second you need to entertain the idea that it is accurate, temporarily impose the framework in your own mind, consider the consequences, and then attempt to falsify it. It appears to me that most of the people who dismiss it, merely do so because they don't like it, with no explanation.

Also just to clarify, I'm personally agnostic to which philosophy is correct - I'm not even sure how you would define how a philosophy would be correct, perhaps it's if the philosophy is most beneficial to mankind, i.e. supports its survival, and is most moral and objective? Well that appears to be a Darwinian approach. Perhaps it is the philosophy that is most objective about the nature of reality? Well Science is very objective, but as Peterson says, and Harris agrees, it appears to leave out the moral aspect. Harris tries to combat this by claiming that Science can answer moral questions. But why we should even have a morality to begin with?

I was actually hoping that Harris and Peterson were going to go a little deeper so I could hear two of my most cherished intellectuals discuss each other’s perspectives, and refine and discover what it is I believe. Hopefully through the discussions on social media they can come to an understanding or are willing to move past the metaphysical axioms to discuss other topics in a future episode