Reality is objective. No argument there. In fact both in my book and in and article on Medium (“It’s Not All About You”) I show why solipsism is false.

But truth is a quality of propositions, and the languages and theories in which those propositions are couched do evolve.

Where Peterson and I differ is on the criteria of selection that make statements more true than previous attempts to describe reality. It may be that our ideas will be more conducive to our survival the better they get at predicting events in the natural world, but that’s no guarantee, and indeed unless we train ourselves to use our knowledge wisely, morally, we run an increasing risk of social and ecological disaster.

But such a disaster would not falsify our knowledge. It would be a moral failing, not an epistemological one.

I think Peterson is led into confusion here because of his panpsychism, the same idea that makes him unsure whether God would continue to exist even if we didn’t. I’m surprised he hasn’t worked out his own views on this, and apparently isn’t even aware that there’s a name for what he’s driving at.